Nope. Here's the difference between us. I consider the evidence first and then decide if I'll believe. And I try to remain open to other view points. You on the other hand believe something first and only see evidence that fits your view, and you close yourself off to other view points. If not, it's simple. Just admit the stone could be authentic. If you can't agree with this it says a lot about you my friend? Prove me wrong? And then agree that the Templars could have had something to do with the stone. And when I say prove me wrong, that's not an invite to falsify the argument. I mean prove me wrong that you don't simply see what you believe and agree that the stone and it's involvement with the templars could be legit. If you can't, I'm vindicated - you see what you believe. Kind of sticks you between a rock and hard place, don't sweat it out too long.

;)

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

Apparently you do?

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

What, need a point of contention after the clarification? Need to keep the ol momentum going? Talk about "oh brother".

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

What's a matter? Bit touchy aren't we?

"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"

I mention it here and there as a point of consideration, not a necessity. So what? Why do you want to paint my portrait as desperate? That somehow give you the upper hand? Fact, you're the ones desperate about swine flu. So there. *sticks tongue out*

"But keep it up, your faux intellectualism remains highly entertaining...:)""

If it's so entertaining, why do you commonly get touchy about every little small detail. You often certainly don't act like you're having fun? You wouldn't be saying that just cause I mention it sometimes here and there would ya? The more someone responds to me, the more entertained I am, so keep up the good work! *wicked grin*

Patrick, again, at the risk of a stunning rebuke...

what was the source of your C&P in this Post?

"C&P in this Post"

Don't know what C&P is but see post below.

A rather loud and boisterous discussion, as seems to always happen when the Kensington Runestone is brought up. I see that I was mentioned here in the course of the discussion (Michael Zalar), so I thought I should chime in.

At the moment, I believe the strongest evidence in favor of authenticity is the dotted R rune. This rune was not noticed in the inscription (at least in any published fashion) until it was spotted by Erick Wahlgren, and opponent of the stone, in the 1950s. Apparently the use of this rune in modern times was not noted until the 1930s.

It was Dr. Nielsen, just a few years ago, who noted that the dotted R rune, in use in medieval times, denoted the palital R sound. Given this as a hypothesis, Nielsen noted that two other runes on the stone should have the same marking. Further examination (a testing of the hypothesis) revealed that the runes in question did have the dotted characteristic - in one case the stone had spalled off when the attempt to make a clear dot occured, and in the other the marking was very light (speculation is that it was done lightly due to the spalling of the earlier made rune). In this later case, a further dot was added between the 'legs' of the R.

Thus we have a tested hypothesis regarding the palital R rune in the Kensington inscription as an authentic medieval Rune, and a rune for which there is no attestation in the 19th century. In short there is a rune on the Kensington stone which exisited in medieval inscriptions but runically did not exist in the 1800s.

I can see no remotely reasonable argument which would place this rune on the stone if it were a forgery. Indeed, if it were not for the contensiousness that has surrounded the stone for over a century (and which can be quite plainly seen in this discussion), this rune alone should be considered ample proof of authenticity. At the very least it must take the inscription out of the 'obvious forgery' category and give it the status of being worthy of further scholarly research.

Thanks for the input Michael. I am a skeptic by nature, but to dismiss the veracity of the Kensington Runestone out of hand amounts to paranoia, in my humble opinion. I don't regard the possibility of such an early visit to America so remarkable as to be outside the realm of possibility. If the stone is a forgery, then continued study should eventually prove as much. I can't see how I am harmed by remaining open-minded about this until there is definitive proof -- one way or the other.

"I don't worship the guy, no, but I find his geology evidence convincing."

We had a number of stone forgeries some years back appearing in Israel, the Ossuary of James getting lots of publicity, a supposed 1st Temple plaque being another. The fabricator is currently in jail.

There has been definitive proof: from geology and linguistics. We've gone over this? You can't fake the oxidation patterns, the tree root patterns, the rock chips under 20 in of dirt, or the stone's mention of water surrounding the knoll. You can probably fake the linguistics, but nobody had knowledge of the dotted-R until 1935 and didn't have full knowledge until 2004, whence they began to match up everything in Gotland, tracing everything back to the Templars and/or Cisternians. That's all pretty definitive. You might as well say, "I'll remain open-minded until there is definitive proof of the dinosaurs - one way or the other - never mind the fossils and other geological evidence."

Can't have it both ways you know? Either disbelieve the dinosaurs via fossil evidence AND the geology of the Kensington stone, or believe both? But you must be consistent. Otherwise we have a bit of a cognitive dissonance problem on our hands.

By the way, if you want more proof of monks working together with warriors, just consider the Beowulf epic written around 500 to 700 AD? Recall the Christian monk?

So from that we're supposed to learn that EVERYTHING is forged? That's like someone thinking that everyone is mean just because they were treated mean once. It's a hasty generalization fallacy.

Patrick, have you seen, a gentleman of interest has just posted above ? do you go by threads only ?

The Monks were warriors at that time. Nuns were sometimes their traveling 'companians'.

Patrick:

So from that we're supposed to learn that EVERYTHING is forged? That's like someone thinking that everyone is mean just because they were treated mean once. It's a hasty generalization fallacy.

What we should learn from this is that it is possible to forge stone relics and get them past several layers of real scientists. Stone is difficult to date, especially if removed from context, as in the cases of the Israeli finds and the Minnesotan. Paleography is an imprecise science, closer to art history than geology. Fraud happens, frequently, and has for a long time in the antiquities business. There are knappers out there who can make wonderful Clovis points and accelerate the aging process so that, out of context, the points can't be told from real artifacts. I've heard that as many as 3/4's of the prize flints in the collection community are fakes.

When talking about creating a forgery, keep in mind that this would have been done over a century ago. I will credit that the appearance of wethering (ie the worn grooves where not scratched out) may have been within the capabilities of a 19th century forger. But the destruction of the biotite - something that I dont believe would even be known at thte time? That seems a little far fetched.

Now consider that this would be a time consuming operation. But for something taking that much time, there were many avoidable errors <I delivered a paper on this last year for a Minnesota Historical Society sesquicentennial event, the Minnesota 150 - to be published in 2010>. For instance though there were many books showing medieval runes, the Kensington Inscription varied widely from these published rune rows. It seems incongrous at the least to presume a forgery which included fake weathering, but not an 'authentic' (in 19th century terms) set of runes.

"It seems incongrous at the least to presume a forgery which included fake weathering,"

Haven't seen presumptions of fraud, but plenty of research concluding that it is. Just trying to point out to Patrick that lithic fraud happens and that presumption of authenticity sometimes gets in the way of objective analysis.

Don't follow. You need me to reply to someone?