Cudos & thanks to: Johnny Canuck
FreeThinkerIdealist
HighMystic
Dr_Seto_Hut
all others & et al out there
Johnny C, heres one for you: I personally know Mr. Spence. I worked with him, attended church w/ he & his family. Served with him in the National Guard for a period, visited he & family at their home on occasion. He is a very respected local man. I would use my final breath to say that he would not have planted the Judean coin. On the other hand, I doubt that he would allow an archaeological grid to be stretched across his hilltop acreage. However, come to think of it, everyman has a price...LOL!

Back to the original thread, I find that Wolter & Neilson may have something here, be it a bucking bronco or zebra if you will, time will prevail. There must be more books on the subject of the Templars than one could dare read in a 2 lifetimes. The medieval dating system [Easter Table] is indeed noteworthy, especially with the connection to the 14th c. dotted R rune, along w/ the crossed L & U. Obviously there is the overt message & a covert message in the Kensington Stone, & thus it would stand to reason that someone did have an agenda. Whatever it was, it was VERY important. Enough such that a 14th c. educated man took the time to creat a lasting tribute or message for us & ours to come,

[edit on 6-9-2007 by DREAMING MAN]

Originally posted by DREAMING MAN
I personally know Mr. Spence.I would use my final breath to say that he would not have planted the Judean coin.

Not meaning to impugn your friend...rather, that some wise guy could have planted it many years ago...or it could have been lost by anyone who might have carried it around as a charm. There are lots of instances and stories...somewhere in Ontario is a former student who still swears there is a coverup of early Chinese exploration because he never believed that a classmate threw an antique Chinese coin into his screen during his field school. The Prof was not pleased!

Quickly, here...I'm still in search of the aforementioned copper citation. I think on most counts we actually agree...but I will take issue with the above statement on the basis that we have well-defined cultural imports from Mexico...most notably maize culture and the development of the 'Three Sisters', or MesoAmerican Agricultural Complex. IMHO, mound culture, climaxing in the Missisippean, is another Mexican import, and it made it up to Serpent Mounds, in Ontario.

Thanks, I'd like to see that citation. I also think we agree about most stuff as well.

You're right, of course, about Mexican imports, but I was talking about a material find, such as a sculpture from Mexico.

I was also thinking of something that indicates a face-to-face meeting rather than a cultural import that could have been passed from group of people to group of people without contact with the original source. A sculpture or material artifact could have traveled in this way to North America, but I feel there's more of a chance for actual contact if it were a material object (think Mississippian long nosed god artifact found in that Central American cenote). Sorry, I should have been more clear.

I disagree that mound culture is a Central American import. There's no doubt that Central America influenced North American monumental architecture, but there's also the theory that Watson Brake and the culture that built those mounds may have influenced the Olmec. The age of Watson Brake is amazing, then there's Poverty Point and the complexity of that culture. Who knows. I think my main concern is placing the full weight of achievement and culture on Mexico/Central America, which would be incorrect in my opinion. Note that I don't believe this was your intention.

As for maize and the 'Three Sisters' which didn't make their appearance until after 200 A.D. in most places in N.A. By then, the Hopewell were in decline. There's more evidence that much of the cultures in question developed, more or less, on their own.

Any Mexican influence may have been carried to the Ohio Valley via the massive trade network that existed in North America at this time, but the 'seat' of power and influence was in Ohio and Indiana as evidenced by the massive amount of precious burial goods found there (especially Newark). Then there's the things in the Hopewell world that don't exist anywhere else, including Central America.

I feel, for the most part, they were their own people. They were probably influenced by outside sources but their culture was strong enough to keep an identity. I agree that the Mississippians were influenced by Mexico--a conglomeration of Ancient Hopewell customs, Mexican influences and the dynamic cultures of the Southeast (like the Buzzard Cult).

Really interesting stuff, at least to me.


--

As for the Runestone, I still feel that it's a fake. I'm going by the majority of expert opinion (the clincher was the overwhelming consensus of Scandinavian linguists) and the fact that there was ample motivation for a nineteenth century trickster to plant it. Then there was the deathbed confession of a fraud that may or may not have taken place...

In the end, the find can't be placed in context which is a big red flag and the last nail for me.

[edit on 6-9-2007 by Dr_Seto_Hut]

[edit on 6-9-2007 by Dr_Seto_Hut]

Don't post much on here but I have been a member for a while.
Anyway, this thread caught my attention in my email, so I thought I'd add this to the mix.
www.thecanyon.com/buchheit/index.htm
I tried to access The Gazette but they folded back into the Republic 1 month before I found out about this.
My mother actually wrote a letter to The Smithsonian Inst. and must have caught someone new, because at first they admitted to it, then vehemently denied it. (A 2nd person with denial) The first person admitted to having several small 'coffins' that came from Az. back then.
If you do a search, you can still find copies of the original newspaper article on the 'net, I just can't find my stash in my computer, got too much to look through!
enjoy.............sledge

I remember when I first heard about the Kensington Runestone about 6 or 7 years ago. I was told about it by my high school history teacher. He said that he read up on it, and at first was thought to be a hoax because the runes where not in the same style as othe runes from Scandinavia. The someone who was a historian took a closer look at it and said the runes where most likely the revised version created by (I think) a christian king from Denmark who was trying to remove the pagan influence from the symbols in the 13th century.

Icould be wrong, but I thought it was worth shareing for ya'll to read and see what you think.

[edit on 23-9-2007 by seeker83]

Originally posted by ElectRon41
I once saw a program on TV about some mysterious markings carved into a rock cliff here in Texas. They were found by early settlers and resembled Celtic writting.

I have looked for a link and couldn't find one. It may be that the markings were already debunked but I thought it would be noteworthy to mention in this case.

It's already well known that Columbus and other western Europeans were not the first white men to find America. It's not much of a stretch to think that Vikings or others may have forded rivers to explore areas further inland. Perhaps the rune stone is a marker--their version of the flag we left on the moon to say "we were here first".

Yep - here in Canada it's an officially accepted historical fact that Norsemen landed on the east coast long ago. Their settlements have been found, along with many viking artifacts. No-one is sure where they they then went - although local native legend states that the natives drove them off, killing many of them after some kind of altercation. It's very possible that the survivors headed south into what is today the US. Not that much of a stretch really...

J.