In 1898, a Swedish immigrant named Olof Ohman allegedly discovered a rune stone known as the Kensington Runestone. Scholars were quick to dismiss this discovery as a hoax. However analysis of the stone seems to suggest authenticity. Olof simply had the misfortune of being a Swedish immigrant, so he obviously could have made the inscriptions up using his Swedish dialect, or could he? Sure, Olof had two books with details of Old Swedish but the Swedish grammar book was given to him after the stone was found. He obviously tried to learn the language post-discovery, not pre-discovery. Perhaps this is hearsay evidence but here's something more substantial.

Olof merely spoke a Swedish "a"-dialect, confined to the rural areas northwest of Stockholm. The rune stone was written in an "e"-dialect, a variant found exclusively in Sweden's southernmost region. In fact, the stone's inscription describes Goths from Gotland, where the "e"-dialect was spoken. This was not generally known in Olof's day. The modern translation of the stone's inscription reads:

"We eight Swedish-Gotlanders and twenty-two Northmen/Norwegians are on this acquisition expedition far west from Vinland. We had properties near two shelters one day's march north from this stone. We went fishing one day. After we came home, I found ten men red with blood, dead. Ave Maria, save us from evil! I have ten men by the sea to look after our ships fourteen days' travel from this site. Year of the Lord 1362."

Researchers believe Vinland was an old Viking settlement somewhere along the coast of Maine, or Labrador where a thousand-year old Viking settlement is located at the archaeological site of L'anse aux Meadows.

The runestone text also cites the stone's location on an "island", which at first seems contrary to the stone's farmland location. However, researchers later learned that the 50-foot knoll where Olof made his discovery was standing above a higher water-table that formed a shallow lake during the general time frame of 1362. Olof could not have known about the ancient "e"-dialect, let alone the geological evidence for an ancient shallow lake.

More linguistic evidence will be cited shortly below, but first I will refer to the evidence from geological studies. Olof originally noted the runestone's weathered appearance and unfortunately took a nail and made scratches in the rune symbols so they would show up later. This misled scholars for some time, suggesting an obvious forgery. However, studies have shown that the modern scratches atop the original runes came hundreds of years after the original runes, as indicated by the residue of oxidation surrounding each glyph.

Geologist Scott Wolter studied the stone in 2000, using forensic petrograph, a microscopic study of stones and concrete. He found that the base of the glyphs had scratches but the walls were weathered, which indicates a modern scratching of a more ancient origination. Then he noted the stone had white, undulating and branching features that look like tree roots, consistent with the story that Olof found the stone amongst roots from an overturned tree. He consulted with soil scientists and learned that an acidic chemical reaction involving a ground fungus in connection to the root could have etched the root markings into the stone permanently. That's a pretty good one, how did Olof fake that one? There was no biological knowledge of such a thing in Olof's day. Indeed, how did Olof know about the ancient "e"-dialect, the ancient lake, geology of weathered patterns, and now tree biology?

Furthermore, Wolter also proved geologically that Olof could not have produced the glyphs in his day but that they minimally were chiseled 200 years earlier. He compared tombstones from an old colonial grave by taking a piece to examine the weathered appearance of brotite, also common to the runestone. The tombstone he used was dated 1806 and the brotite was just beginning to weather 200 years later. Biotite from the Kensington inscription had already disappeared, suggesting an even more ancient time. Hence, the stone was carved no later than the 1600s and most likely hundreds of years earlier. Furthermore, researchers uncovered rock fragments of the same material as the Kensington runestone located 23.62 inches (60 cm) below the ground surface, which further proves the stone was cut in the place where it found and long before Ohman's time. All this sort of geological evidence suggests authenticity. To suggest the stone inscriptions are forged geologically as a hoax is like suggesting that fossil evidence from the dinosaurs came from the devil.

Moreover, nobody had rune knowledge in the 1600s, and very little in 1898, certainly not the anomalous runes that don't look like old Swedish, too modern to be used in 1362. And in fact, no one had full knowledge until just after the year 2000, whereupon two additional discoveries were made: the Easter table and a low-angle light study.

The low-angle light study revealed punch marks and short strokes that were missed in earlier studies. Wolter discovered that some of the "R"-s were dotted. Similar dotted-R's were found in Sweden on medieval grave slabs. Scandinavian scholars didn't know about the dotted R's until 1935, so how did they get on the Kensington runestone? One could posit that Olof was a time traveler perhaps, but Occam's razors posits that the more simple theory is the correct one.

The stone also had dotted "X"-s, double dots on top with a hook in one of the stave-marks, which was originally out of the question for the 14th century. This supposedly proved it was a hoax, and yet, the hooked-X has never been found anywhere else until 2004 in something called the Larsson papers. This includes an Easter table method of deciphering a coded language using a chart of runes. The Larsson papers, allegedly written in 1883-1885, shows that ancient Freemasons may have used the mysterious runes. The hooked-X and seven other runes appear in the Larrson papers.

I suppose that Olof could have been a Freemason, I have no idea, but there's just one problem. Why would Olof create a secret message that only the masons of his day could possibly have deciphered, and why would he try to deceive only them and not the world at large? Again Occam's razor applies: the simplest theory is most likely to be correct - the secret code was used by people that predated Olof. And it wasn't used to deceive anyone but stake out a land claim, especially given the geological evidence. Scholars believe that runestone is actually a land claim in this regard, not a tombstone. This is evident in its staking out the claim via one day's march, 14 day's march, and the land towards Vinland. And besides, the Larrson papers do not incorporate all the elements found on the Kensington runestone anyways, meaning the language and grammar. There is only one other place that does: the Cistercian churches that dot the tiny island of Gotland in the Baltic Sea, the exact churches used by a group that predates the masons, none other than the Knights Templar.

Walter found the rare dotted Rs on grave slabs of the Lye church in Gotland, for example. These grave slabs were double-dated using the Easter table dating method. The method provided the ancient Cistercians and Templars the number of the year but also either wrote it out or hid the date using special marks amongst the letters of the text. The table was a deciphering chart to interpret the marked runes. This way the true year could be retained if someone tried to change the numerical date.

The double-dating method is also found on the Kensington runestone. Three runes are singled out by the carver with cross marks running through the vertical stave-mark that doesn't belong there. By plotting them on the Easter table they produce 1362, in collaboration with the numerical 1362 number. These points of evidence would all suggest that the people inscribing the text were staking out a land claim using large, medium, and small context. In other words, Templars were in heart of American in 1362! This is the stuff that Dan Brown novels are made of!

The Templars may not have been educated enough to write the inscription but a Cistercian monk could have been, who could also have easily been one of the Goths. It was very common for a monk to travel with the Templar knights to protect the party during a voyage. Note again the modern translation of "journey of acquisition" instead of ""journey of discovery". This suggest a land claim.

Another runestone was discovered in 1824 of Upernavik Greenland. The stone notes a 1314 date and is also double-dated. It is connected to the Kensington runestone. A number of rocks in Kensington were discovered to have bored holes drilled into them. This could have been a breadcrumb trail to mark where the Templars had been. When you plot the original position of the holes in each stone, nine or so holes, in the area of the Ohman farm, they form lines and triangulate to intersect exactly in the place where the Kensington stone was found. The Upernavik site happens to have similar bored holes at various stones. And if that is not enough, the tip of Michigan's Keenaw peninsular, just south of Lake Superior, has a circled cross symbol, which was commonly used by the Templars. They also found a circled cross in a cave in southern Illinois, discovered in 1982, which represents a whole other issue worth noting shortly as a a side note.

There is also evidence that comes from the ancient Micmak indian tribe (Mikmaq variant spelling). History records that a Templar prince, Henry Sinclair, set out on voyage in 1398. He is alleged to have landed on the eastern coast of America, around Nova Scotia. The Micmak state flag bears a striking similarity to flags used by the Templars and Sinclairs at the time of Henry's journey. The flag shows a large cross that runs sideway and had a crescent moon and a star. The Micmak flag is exactly the same accept the moon and the star positions are reversed. Moreover, the Micmak people called a certain leader Gloocap, probably Henry. Gloocap is said to have "held court" on a cliff overlooking the ocean on top of Mount Blomidon, which doesn't match Micmak concepts. The Micmaks also describe Gloocap's visit and talk about him building a ship there. Additionally, the say he "built himself and island" and planted trees on it. This is alleged to be Oak Island, one island among 300 or small islands in the area.

The oak trees are not indigenous to the island and supposedly marks a secret treasure. They found a type of underground "well" on the island, which is covered with dirt above and earth sandwiched between wooden logs every 10 feet, which goes down to 90 feet where a stone was found that says a treasure sat 30 more feet down below. But the underground structure is booby trapped to cave in with water due to artificially made underground channels. This leads some to hypothesize that the Sinclairs and Templars searched for a place to hide their treasure, perhaps the grail, away from Europe where it could not be found.

Another piece of evidence for Templar presence in America comes from the Westford Knight, an effigy of a knight carved into bedrock in Westford, Massachusetts. A pommel medieval sword is clearly visible, though the rest is clearly not. One must rely on pictures taken in the past for a complete study. However, from the coat of arms on the knight, one allegedly finds that he was a member of the Clan Gunn. The Zeno narrative states that Sir James Gunn was a cousin and boon companion of Henry Sinclair across the voyage of the Atlantic.

They also found three other small rocks with rune glyphs about 2 days march north of the ancient site of Vinland at a site near a creek. Allegedy another hoax, one was a map rock that showed a layout of the area down on down to the are of Newport, Rhode Island. This stone map marks another stone, I believe, called the Narragenset stone, which coincidentally has another hooked-X, which suggests Templar or Masonic involvement. And lo and behold across the bay of the Narragenset stone is the Newport tower, the last piece of evidence.

This tower is alleged to have been a windmill or some other structure set up around colonial times. However, a number of facts stand out. First of all, windmills over in Europe have six columns; the Newport tower has eight, which is consistent with various round churches in Europe. Second, Giovanni Verranzano came over in 1524 and put it on his map of the Atlantic coast, showing that the structure predates colonial times. Third, there's evidence that the structure had a round or circular ambulatory around the structure, which round churches had. The Cambridge round church in Europe for example has an ambulatory as does the Templar round church on the island of Bornholm. Proof for the ambulatory comes from circular patterns of red discoloration in the clay around the tower. Fourth, the structure was used as an astronomical observatory, evident in the various windows, which show observation of astronomical alignments. One interesting structure is a particular egg-shaped keystone among a set of keystones. This keystone is illuminated at 9 am on the winter solstice, an important time of prayer for the Templar people. And sixth, there are a number of keystones that when you plot these and triangulate the center of the tower through the keystones, there's a line of direction that points exactly to the site of Kenington, Minnosota.

So the Templars seem to have set foot in America, in the later 1300's. The Templars are alleged to have set foot in America precisely because of the death warrant issued against them in Europe in 1307. The French king simply used the rumors of heresy that circulated at the time as an excuse to hunt them down so he could get rid of his debts to the Templars, thus to steal their wealth. The rest of the Templars moved to either Scotland or Portugal.

The northern Templars sought refuge with Robert the Bruce and fought with him until Scotland won independence in 1328. Whereupon the Templar fleet of 17 or so ships soon disappeared thereafter from history. This leads others to hypothesize that they took their treasure with them over to America, hence the cave of Egyptian artifacts discovered in that Illinois cave mentioned above with the Templar circled cross (e.g. various Egyptian pictures and iconography). Some 4000 to 7000 artifacts were discovered in this cave, so if this was a forgery the forgers had a LOT of time on their hands. The further hypothesis in this regard is that the Knights originally searched for something stock piled beneath the old temple mount of Solomon's temple, which were Egyptian artifacts taken by Moses out of Egypt. Personally I think while the artifacts might be authentic, I'm not sure I find this hypothesis convincing. However, the cave site did have Templar circled crosses in the cave, so who knows.

The rest of the Templars are alleged to have stayed in Scotland to give birth to the Freemasons and Rosicrucians, who once again had round churches, some of which had the same rune markings. Anyway, when Robert died in 1329, he requested his body be buried in Jerusalem and taken there by the Templars. They were attacked by Muslims in route who took the body, but they gave his heart back to the Templars and Sinclairs. The heart was taken back to Scotland and buried in Melrose Abbey, which was obviously connected to the Rosicrucians, meaning "red cross". The small circular shaped "organ coffin", that housed the embalmed heart, clearly has a cross over a heart shape, and hearts are usually red. See for example the photo at: [http://www.flickr.com/photos/­42304632@N00/160339259], though I presume the order was not named after this "coffin" but for the simple red cross emblem of the Templars.

This brings to mind the Rosslyn chapel with its connection to the Rosicrucian order. This chapel has the hooked-X present and other runes, which by the way might have been umlauts that marked how the letters sounded. Later scholars have suggested these weren't umlauts but a common convention used in the 1300s. And the Cistercian churches of Gotland, recall, had rounded churches and similar rune glyphs. The Kensington runestone shares similar rune glyphs to all these structures.

Anyways, the hooked-X also shows up in Portugal. The plague was wiping out much of Europe and the "men red with blood, dead" could have been plague victims, if not killed by Indians. The plague, coincidentally causes hemorrhaging, and it came from rats, common stowaways on ships. If the Templars came to America, the plague probably halted progress. Enter Christopher Columbus, a member of the order of the Knights of Christ. The Templars seem to have basically told Columbus where to find America.

Records show his ties to the Sinclair family through marriage via his father in law Bartholomew Perestrello, the grand master of the order in Portugal. As a point of fact, Columbus' signia shows the hooked-X after he came back from the New World. More and more would come to the New World until we arrive during colonial times and Revolution, whereupon George Washington and other Masons would found the American nation upon Masonic ideals, which originated with the Templars.

This all suggests that the Kensington stone is authentic and demonstrates the ancient presence of Templar Knights in America. Geological evidence confirms its authenticity, as does knowledge of rune glyphs not fully discovered until 1935 to 2004, and as does other points of evidence duly noted. Among the rune glyphs, the text features 11 medieval rune forms unknown to scholars at the time Ohmann found the runestone, and yet they were found in Scandinavia during the following century. And all the grammatical anomalies, duly confirmed, trace back to Gotland.

There's just one other curious element associated with the stone. There's also a set of marks and punches that when you pull them out in sequence, they spell out "grail". The hypothesis is that the Templars took the grail, and hid it overseas on an island. The grail could be a cup, it could be the Egyptian treasure found in the Illinois cave, or could be something hidden on Oak Island. However, simple logic might suggest that if "grail" is written on a land claim, which marks out a general American territory, the grail simply IS the land of America - or not.

However, legend has it that Merlin made a voyage across the sea to be buried in Avalon, which is always across a vast body or water. Other famous works seem to try to mimic this, such as when Lord of Ring elves sailed across a great body of water at the end. I have a book in my possession, although I ironically have not read it yet, called "Merlin and the discovery of Avalon in the new world". I thumbed through it a little and the last page mentions a supposed prophetic dream that Merlin had about Avalon when he fell asleep on the voyage. The dream was written in an ancient work called "The voyage of Maelduin's boat", and the author discussing this book considers it as evidence of a transatlantic voyage because it describes things could only be known by someone traveling on a ship: giant floating crystals described as icebergs, the Faroe Isles, and the volcanoes of Iceland, which all describes the shores of Greenland and Labrador. It's written clear back to the eighth century, a time just before the Vikings came to Greenland. Here's an excerpt of the book describing the ancient work:

"Merlin dreams of Avalon as the magical capital of the Otherworld. It's an island full of marvels with a city built from crystal [if true, possibly glass], silver [metal perhaps], marble, and bronze. In the dream, when Merlin and his friends arrive there, they are greeted by its giant queen."

The passage of the ancient story cited is then read aloud dialogue:

"She wore a white mantle, with a circlet of gold in her hair...Two sandals she wore on her feet and a silken smock she wore next to her white skin, tied with a brooch...".

Then the book continues with their dialogue discussing the story: "Does any of this sound familiar to you? A huge white-skinned woman, wearing sandals, dressed in a robe, tied with a brooch, with a circlet on her head?" The dialogue explains that a circlet was a small crown or coronet, a sort of tiara.

The author suggests this giant woman who greeted Merlin and his friends, standing off the coast, was a prophecy of the Statue of Liberty. Everything checks out in the description accept the golden circlet in her hair, but then I recalled a little history behind the statue. The statue was originally to be made as a stature of Isis, Egyptian wife of the sun god, so the crown was to actually symbolize golden rays of sunlight. But of course the statue was then adapted and altered for something else - the United States.

The book also mentions that when Merlin was old, he decided to finish out the rest of day as a hermit and urges his wife, Guinevere, to take another husband, which she agrees. She, however, built a tower for him so that he could observe the stars and make predictions. Could this merely be coincidental to the Newport Tower as an observatory? It must be, unless the design of the construction was prophetically made to point out the Kensington stone, which seems less likely. If there's any truth to Merlin's tower it must be separate from the Newport Tower.

However, I thought I'd do a little more research into the grail just for fun. The grail was supposedly a cup used by Christ during sacramental rites. However, I'm aware that the Christian sacrament closely mirrors the Jewish temple rituals of showbread for example. So I determined to see if there was anything remotely like the grail in these rites, looking for some kind of cup. I settled on the golden incense burner, which was supposedly a large spoon shaped like cupped-hand. I found information at <link> which says that the term "consecrate" means to fill the hand, which I also confirmed using Strong's Concordance. In addition to this, the Egyptians had the same spoon (and the spoon made its way to the Mayans). The idea was to consecrate oneself by filling up the hand with something, in the case of the showbread or sacrament, one is consecrated by filling up the hand with the bread (i.e. grabbing some bread).

The grail could simply be one of the incense spoons shaped like a cupped hand that consecrated various holy sites. Indeed, I have a number of books that I perused through and some connect fire to the grail, yet with overtones of Pagan corruption. One book, which I've hardly read, called "The lost magic of Christianity" mentions on p. 85 that the term excalibur derives from the Greek Ex-Kylie-Pur, which translates "out of a cup, a fire". This would confirm the link to the incense dish, which was a cupped spoon used to burn incense. Excalibur and the grail were one and the same. This was the holy grail! This is probably related to the legend of the phoenix, whereupon a resurrected bird, or smoke, arose from the glow of ashes. If so, the Templars may have simply found one of the incense dishes underneath the mount of Solomon's temple.

Of course questions remain, like why the Kensington stone mentions the grail. Perhaps the device was used ceremonially to consecrated various objects, sites, or tasks. Consecration seems consistent with the Kensington stone as a land claim. That is, the term grail on the stone could simply mean "consecrated", meaning the stone was dedicating the whole area as a land claim. Support for this may come from the Hebrew term yad, meaning open hand, which is mentioned in 1 Sa 15:12. According to Vines Expository Dictionary, since the hand may be held up as a sign, yad can signify a monument or stele: "Saul came to Carmel, and behold, he set him up a place [yad: monument], and is gone about, and passed on, and gone down to Gilgal". Saul did not necessarily have to use one of these cups though. He could have simply used his own hand in ritualistic gesture to dedicate his monumental stone. Likewise, the grail could simply have been knowledge associated to the incense cup. But given the Excalibur link, they probably used a cupped spoon and incense. But of course the possible grail link is a complete different issue.

As a closing note, it is worth nothing that in 1355, the Norwegian king, Magnus Eriksson, issued a royal decree in 1355, ordering a fact finding mission to investigate the condition of Greenland's colony and beyond. This expedition returned in 1364, two years after the 1362 date. The head of the expedition, Count Paul Knudsen, then delivered his report to the new king Hakon Magnuseen and described his adventure as a "journey of discovery", or if we parallel the Kensington inscription, "journey of acquisition". Yet the journey of these northern Templars to America began to dwindle for whatever reasons, perhaps in association with the plague. Christopher Columbus would soon take up the "mantel" thereafter, or we might perhaps simply say "grail".

Look, no one would be happier that I to find out that this is the real thing. My mom is 100% Norwegian and my Dad is 1/2 All my uncles and aunts are in the "Son's of Norway" and Christmas time up in the old town in Wisconsin is blur of Aqua Vit, Sanbakels, lutefisk and lefsa.

Yup, it would be great, but it's a hoax. IT has been a hoax. All the folks in the town knew it was a hoax, all the farmers knew it was a hoax. My great uncle Gunnar knew it was a hoax. And Gunnar wasn't real bright.

Dude, the swine flu is a hoax, right back at ya?

"Yup, it would be great, but it's a hoax."

Why? Just because you're brainwashed by the mass media? I told you, the geology proves it and the rune glyphs dotted-Rs and hooked-Xs proves it, knowledge that didn't exist in Olof's day. I don't care if you accept it? Don't?

"All the folks in the town knew it was a hoax, all the farmers knew it was a hoax."

No, they suspected. There's a difference. It was a hoax, how did they fake the geology? It's like saying the devil made up fossil evidence?

"My great uncle Gunnar knew it was a hoax. And Gunnar wasn't real bright."

So in order to look smart, I need to mimic uncle Gunnar? And...that's called "bright" in your play book? It's just brainwashing by the media. Instead of believing what you see like the geology evidence, you see only what you believe. How myopic and uninspiring.

My god, I'm sorry to see there are still whores cashing in on Cobain. Digression, sorry. Anyway, was the previous post on this subject subtitled : Prologue? I missed it if it was.

Sure, Believe away if you want to. There is a pile of information de-bunking this on the web.

Maybe you might consider the possibility that I WAS a firm believe in this as well as other Viking myths surrouding Norse occupation of North America. But, I actually studied the issue and realized that I was being lied to by one side. And, purely through the weight of the evidence and the force of reason, setting aside my own personal bias, I came to this conclusion.

Instead of considering this possibility you simply feel that I was brainwashed by the mainstream media. Is that the phrase you used? Never mind the fact that the mainstream media hasn't put up anything about this particular runestone since 1976. Never mind that the guy who found the stone was both a stone mason, a Scandanavian American and an amateur Rune Scholar. Nevermind that the runes carved on the stone don't match any runic alphabet in use at the time the stone was supposedly carved or that it uses runes that weren't in use until 200 years after it was carved or that it doesn't use the correct cases etc. Also ignore the fact that medieval scholars, rune experts and liguists have all pointed out that it is a hoax. Please continue to believe your own personal "gut" feeling on this. There is no possibility that you could be wrong and could be being a sucker for a local tourist trap museum in Minnesota.

Patrick, what was the source of that article?

...that this hoax is considered by you to be "real," but that it must somehow be connected with the Templars, something virtually no one else believes?

Insane.

How do you account for the lack of cases in the writing on the stone, for example? Old Norse, like modern German, had four cases. These had disappeared by the 16th century, but were common in the 14th...when the stone was supposed to have been carved. Were they just advanced linguistically, or what?

And what about the use of pentadic numerals? That is, the numbers are not spelled out, as they would likely have been at the supposed time of its carving, they were abbreviated. Such numerals are common now, but their usage was extremely rare, and limited mostly to mathematics scholars, in the 14th century.

Sure there is some legitimate support for the stone's authenticity, but let's face it - most consider it a forgery. And the Templar thing is stacking absurdity on top of doubt, unless you're Scott Wolter or one of his disciples.

But that seems to be something you like to do here, isn't it Patrick? :)

Patty, people are getting sick and occasionally dying of the swine flu. That's not being "brainwashed by the mass media." Nor is it comparable to the dating and authenticating of a big lump of rock with some dubious runes on it.

As with most things you post here, it's about your ego and need to stir the shit. Whatever "brightness" you possess you're wasting here. And for what?

The "media" doesn't care, that's for sure.

"Sure, Believe away if you want to. There is a pile of information de-bunking this on the web."

Unlike you I believe what I see instead of seeing what i believe. My belief is based off the evidence, you believe in vaccines however is not. I've shown statistics that the flu vaccine is not very affective. The shot gives you 59% effective protection, which is basically like tossing a coin. Regardless of all this, you still believe in vaccines because you don't consider things like handwashing and nutrition.

"Maybe you might consider the possibility that I WAS a firm believe in this as well as other Viking myths surrouding Norse occupation of North America."

But you're not, you're not a believer? You simply easily give in to media hype.

"But, I actually studied the issue and realized that I was being lied to by one side."

Dude, nobody had knowledge of the dotted R until 1935, way after, and nobody had knowledge of the hooked-X until after 2000. Moreover the geology speaks: root indentations in the stone, and stone parts chiseled away, something like 20 inches under the ground. Might as well say the devil made up geological fossils to deceive believers. Olof didn't make it up. And why would he be so stupid as to take a nail and start scraping the weathered appearance of the glyphs if he didn't want people to think he did it? Maybe you ARE being lied to by one side?

"And, purely through the weight of the evidence and the force of reason, setting aside my own personal bias, I came to this conclusion."

Nobody new about the dotted R until 1935; have you considered the evidence that Olof simply didn't know about the glyph? Here's a sampling of the "other sides" argument. The Dec. 12 addition of "Pioneer Press" urged readers to consult chapter 29 "Vikings: the north atlantic saga", as "a debunking of the Kensington Runestone and similar finds." This same source was exposed by Michael Zalar in the Journal of the New England Antiquities Research Association as fraudulent to the contrary when no less than 37 errors of fact were identified. Even the flawed Smithsonian author admitted to at least 10 of them. The Smithsonian guys are always biased and try to apply a knowledge filter to everything. That's what you're dealing with here: outdated arguments and bias. The geological evidence, in addition to recent linguistic findings, proves the stone is authentic in that it predates Olof. Now, you can contend that Templars made the stone, that's a complete different argument, but the argument is solid in that the stone was not produced in Olof's day and it was produced at the site where they found it.

"Instead of considering this possibility you simply feel that I was brainwashed by the mainstream media."

More like influenced with bias.

"Is that the phrase you used?"

Don't remember.

"Never mind the fact that the mainstream media hasn't put up anything about this particular runestone since 1976."

Ah, so you admit you're referring to outdated arguments?

"Never mind that the guy who found the stone was both a stone mason, a Scandanavian American and an amateur Rune Scholar."

First of all, he was a farmer not a brick mason. If you mean free mason, again, why would he produce a stone that only freemasons could read and what was his motive for deceit? Second of all, he was a Scandanavian who spoke the a-dialect, whatever it was, not the 3-dialect on the stone. Third, he as an amateur rune scholar, as anyone could be who reads this stuff. That is, he studied rune glyphs after he found stone. And if his Scandanavian background was enough, why did he begin to study the glyphs? The fourth, once again, if he didn't want the world to know that he made the glyphs, why was he so stupid that he took a nail and started scratching the runes in the open?

"Nevermind that the runes carved on the stone don't match any runic alphabet in use at the time the stone was supposedly carved"

Oh my goodness, you ARE using the outdated argument, and you probably didn't read the my whole post. The runes didn't match any known runic alphabet AT THE TIME because nobody had knowledge of them at the time! So it's impossible that Olof made the runes! Knowledge of the runes only came later, and they are traced back to the Got churches and other structures like Rosslyn chapel.

"or that it uses runes that weren't in use until 200 years after it was carved"

*sighes* Again you're using the outdated argument. They for example said the hooked X was out of the question because it didn't exist during the 1300s. This proved to be untrue however and found that it was commonly used during this time, as shown by the Got churches and grave slabs, etc.

"Also ignore the fact that medieval scholars, rune experts and liguists have all pointed out that it is a hoax."

This is imply untrue. Many rune experts and linguists attest to the authenticity. Maybe they all did back in the 1970s?

"Please continue to believe your own personal "gut" feeling on this."

I told you, you're using an outdated argument. You however seem to be using a gut feeling by ignoring the evidence. If it's fake how did they fake the geology? This is so intriguing because it reminds me of fossil evidence. Some silly people try to suggest the fossils were forged. You "reverse believers" are doing the same thing - the geology surround the stone is made up no doubt.

"There is no possibility that you could be wrong and could be being a sucker for a local tourist trap museum in Minnesota."

You use a tourist trap as evidence?

This line was especially rich:

Unlike you I believe what I see instead of seeing what i believe.

...given that it's the opposite of the truth. Your every argument on this board, your every cite of supposed evidence, is a case of "seeing what you believe."

"Patty, people are getting sick and occasionally dying of the swine flu."

You know what? I don't give a s*it in this post. Keep it in the other post. (I made a point concerning belief to Lumpy about it, that's as far as I've gone with it here.)

"That's not being "brainwashed by the mass media." Nor is it comparable to the dating and authenticating of a big lump of rock with some dubious runes on it."

Hey, that's pretty good Sherlock. I wasn't comparing the stone to vaccines. I was comparing the belief of the one to the other. Don't be so uninspiringly myopic.

"As with most things you post here, it's about your ego and need to stir the shit."

Yeah, I don't know about ego, but I love stirring "the shit". But so what? You never do it with your pot shots? Oh I forgot, all you do is stir people, not debate content. Looser. There's that how you stir things up. How vastly better!! (Just kidding, you're not a looser.)

"Whatever "brightness" you possess you're wasting here. And for what?"

Why the thrill of debate of course. And it exercises my brain, gives me more insight, and makes me more bright. I mean, I'm stupid now I guess (according to you) but if I stick to it, I might make a few more synapses and increase my IQ! Lol. You're the one apparently concerned with IQ and popularity, not me. Those are the markers of ego, my friend. How unwitting!

"The "media" doesn't care, that's for sure."

And I should be concerned with the media...because of...why? Who cares? Seriously, I'm not matching your "don't care" here. I just don't care 'a priori' what the media and therefore group mind things. They can kiss my ass buddy. Lol. You can kiss their ass (apparently) if you want to though?

Patrick:

"Patty, people are getting sick and occasionally dying of the swine flu."

You know what? I don't give a s*it in this post. Keep it in the other post. (I made a point concerning belief to Lumpy about it, that's as far as I've gone with it here.)

I don't give a shit about ANYTHING you say, but you posted this in the post I was answering:

"Dude, the swine flu is a hoax, right back at ya?"

Don't you even remember what you've just posted? :)

"That's not being "brainwashed by the mass media." Nor is it comparable to the dating and authenticating of a big lump of rock with some dubious runes on it."

Hey, that's pretty good Sherlock. I wasn't comparing the stone to vaccines. I was comparing the belief of the one to the other. Don't be so uninspiringly myopic.

Oh, brother...you actually think there's a difference between those two things? Wow..

"As with most things you post here, it's about your ego and need to stir the shit."

Yeah, I don't know about ego, but I love stirring "the shit". But so what? You never do it with your pot shots? Oh I forgot, all you do is stir people, not debate content. Looser. There's that how you stir things up. How vastly better!! (Just kidding, you're not a looser.)

Glad I'm not a "looser," (is that anything like being a "loser?"), but I don't see how my pot shots are the equivalent of your multi-post rants and lectures on stuff you clearly don't even understand.

"Whatever "brightness" you possess you're wasting here. And for what?"

Why the thrill of debate of course. And it exercises my brain, gives me more insight, and makes me more bright. I mean, I'm stupid now I guess (according to you) but if I stick to it, I might make a few more synapses and increase my IQ! Lol. You're the one apparently concerned with IQ and popularity, not me. Those are the markers of ego, my friend. How unwitting!

"Debate," huh? Hard to think of a "looser" definition of it than yours...

"The "media" doesn't care, that's for sure."

And I should be concerned with the media...because of...why? Who cares? Seriously, I'm not matching your "don't care" here. I just don't care 'a priori' what the media and therefore group mind things. They can kiss my ass buddy. Lol. You can kiss their ass (apparently) if you want to though?

I don't know why, but you're DESPERATELY concerned, or you'd hardly be fussing about how everyone here but you is brainwashed by it (as if it were one entity!). But keep it up, your faux intellectualism remains highly entertaining...:)

You responded to the other guy; you're lucky I saw this. Which article? None of it came from any one article. I wrote it but got the info from a number of things. I got interested after i saw a show on the History channel. I confirmed all the points of information in various books, and found more not stated by History, such as found in Unearthing Ancient America and some others like that Merlin source. If you want a good source, try "The Kensington Rune Stone: Compelling New Evidence" as a recommendation. It has hundreds of facts.

"...that this hoax is considered by you to be "real," but that it must somehow be connected with the Templars, something virtually no one else believes?"

Authenticity is one argument; templars is another. For me the authenticity is unquestionable; Templar involvement however is.

"How do you account for the lack of cases in the writing on the stone, for example?"

I you guys all daft and borrow from the one guy who makes such a statement only to suggest it again ad nauseum? This has been addressed, first in the body of my post, secondly to Lumpy, and now to you: that's an outdated argument. There is no longer any lack of cases. There's an abundance of writing on the island of Gotland and also the various language elements in such things as the Rosslyn chapel.

"Old Norse, like modern German, had four cases. These had disappeared by the 16th century, but were common in the 14th...when the stone was supposed to have been carved. Were they just advanced linguistically, or what?"

I'm not gonna pretend like I have all the answers, or maybe I just don't understand the question. I think the outdated argument is that these are supposed to be modern letters and shouldn't show up in the 1300s. They've subsequently found this is not true and that it was common in the 1300s as proved by Gotland and other places.

"And what about the use of pentadic numerals? That is, the numbers are not spelled out, as they would likely have been at the supposed time of its carving, they were abbreviated. Such numerals are common now, but their usage was extremely rare, and limited mostly to mathematics scholars, in the 14th century."

Again, I don't have all the answers. But at least you're actually thinking. The best I can answer with my limited data, not being a linguist and all that, is that the Templars generally did not seem to have commonly used this. Rather, the Cistercian monks did, and the Templars commonly had at least one monk with them to bless their journey. It was hypothesized that a Cistercian monk, as one of the Gotlanders, carved the stone, not Templars who were the Northerns. Besides, just consider that Newport tower as observatory, or even the Egyptians, who used structures as observatories. Maybe just consider the pyramids. One day they just showed up? How did they get so advanced so suddenly? A gradual unfolding of history does not seem like the full story, but you have punctuated advancements, or uses, which reminds me of punctuated equilibrium. You find all sorts of anomalous artifacts in history that doesn't seem to belong, yet there they are. But what do people like you like to do? Sweep them under the rug because it doesn't fit the current paradigm?

"most consider it a forgery."

That's because their world view has been confronted. Many supposed science journals consider vitamins to be a "forgery" too in the use of health - because...it messes with world view, meaning a drug-fill world view.

"And the Templar thing is stacking absurdity on top of doubt, unless you're Scott Wolter or one of his disciples."

I don't worship the guy, no, but I find his geology evidence convincing. But tell me, do you guys pick and choose from geological evidence? When if fits your purposes you'll accept geological evidence in the case of dinosaurs, but when it doesn't fit your purpose about a stone, you'll deny it?

"But that seems to be something you like to do here, isn't it Patrick? :)"

What, seek truth? Sure, why not? What's wrong it? What do you like to do by contrast? Accept geological evidence for fossils when it suits your purpose but not when it comes to the stone? Why does not believing what the other people believes always makes you stupid? That's just as stupid or even more so.