1362-The Kensington Runestone

Look at it like this. You're the new group and I am the interloper. There is a girl in your group that you have had a crush on since third grade but you can't get up the nads to make a move. So you go back and forth with your homies about whether to get her flower or get her drunk. This discussion has been going on for over 5 years and you have grown accustomed to it being the way it is. Then I come along and you see that I am the kind of guy that will walk right up and take her while she will always wonder why you never did the same. So you go to work blocking my advances before I get out of the gate without knowing how she will respond to me in the first place.

No matter what it turns out to be, you will think it isn't fair because you’ve spent so much time nickle dicking around getting nowhere with her that you feel you are entitled to the first shot. And all the while you know I don't care whether I get it right or not becasue I am willing to risk losing to get a shot at getting passed first base. That is what we are talking about here, you guys are not willing to make a move unless you know you got a sure thing. I mean I would appreciate how you treat her if you were making some clear headway by taking the kinds of risks needed to get where you want to go. But you don't seem to have anything constructive to offer the conversation nor even any speculation that you ever will in the future.

I bring a fresh approach to how to coax her out of her secrets but all you guys want to do is spin around in circles trying to decide between rose or getting her drunk when you can't afford to do either one. The game is called move your bowels or get off the pot. And when your done, you can’t just move into the Dons John and live there. You have to go back out into the field and look for another approach or give up.

I hope you can appreciate that I want to discuss this with you so much. I mean I came her thinking there would be no one but,, what do you call them,, bobble heads. When I found your group, I thought what a stroke of luck it was to find people that can actually make this an intelligent conversation. But you are so stuck on yourselves that I am having a hard time getting it started. What the hack though, I have to cover 20 comments before I can open a new thread so I might as well at least try. And insulting you is the only thing that gets your attention. At least I try to be creative about it.

Siemonsen, the man who conducted the 1993 sample collection and delivered said samples to HJ for AMS c14 testing, is a Danish Businessman. No scientific credentials.

By Hanslune's logic this guy should be labeled a "fringe" researcher.

Oh and the AMS testing used elsewhere, such as commented upon in the article above (as used in S. Africa to date old structures), used 300 samples, not just 10 (seven of which were rejected, leaving only 3 for sampling).

One of those "detractors", Alan Watchman, runs his own lab for c14 dating (Data-Roche Watchman, Inc.). I think that gives him particular insight into the issue, and he says there wasn't enough sampling done at Newport.

A. de Bethune (Andre J.) is free to look up on Google, I can't do all the work for you Hans. His paper is: "On the Carbon-14 Analyses of Mortar from the Newport Tower: Theoretical Considerations," I know I have to keep re-posting the link but Hans seems to keep missing it.

Wolter also confirms that Wood Hole Oceanographic dating has returned a date of 1450 for the sample they submitted.

Originally posted by Blackmarketeer
A. de Bethune (Andre J.) is free to look up on Google, I can't do all the work for you Hans. His paper is: "On the Carbon-14 Analyses of Mortar from the Newport Tower: Theoretical Considerations," I know I have to keep re-posting the link but Hans seems to keep missing it.

I doubt he is missing it...the journal of the Newport Historical Society is not a peer reviewed academic journal. It does not reach the standard required to call it proof. Should he be able to publish in a scientific journal...I'd accept it, and I'm guessing that Hans, Harte, and the rest of the usual suspects would give it more credence.

I have published in historical society journals...I am presently preparing the paper for peer review. That's when it enters the realm of fact (as we know it), and being a source that others can cite with confidence.

The very nature of this ongoing debate demonstrates that de Bethune et al...whether right or not...haven't touched all the bases.

I have never known science to do much more than serve itself. If it is peer reviewed, then the peers have a reason for supporting it. That doesn't mean it isn't credible. But it doesn't take very many lies to poison a pool of resources so that there is no way that anyone can refer to science with complete confidence. I wish that were not the case but that is the way it is.

I do however think some of you are engaging in a objective search for facts while others are only willing to accept that they are right before the facts are in. As for the comment by, I believe it was Hans, who said that if he looks up his chimney and sees the North Star, it wouldn’t mean he could call his house the center of the universe, a very charming and witty comment, I guess, whatever it was supposed to mean. I took him to be saying that if the tower columns line up to point directly to the runestone burial site, it doesn't mean that it was done that way purposely.

Is it to far out of bounds of your professional protocols to give your opinions on this? Is this discussion of yours built around the acceptance of the fact that the tower lines up with the burial site so now the big question is when the tower was built, which then would serve to either validate or dismiss whether the alignment of the tower was purposely placed to point to the runestone.

Or that the time it was built will tell who built it as a monument to the location of the runestone. So perhaps you all accept that the runestone and tower are connected. So now you’re trying to find out by who, which is why you are not answering my queries.

From my perspective, it doesn’t matter. All that matters is whether the tower and runstone are connected. You all should really here this story. If you don’t, I will go somewhere else and tell it. When I finally get around to sharing it with the world, it will make the answer to this big question of yours irrelevant. I like the idea of telling my story from here. But I can go elsewhere if you are truly not interested. But you are all going to be kicking yourselves in your rear ends for not having listened to this story.

You are most correct Johnny

Oh by the way send me a u2u I'd be interested in what subject area you are working on.

Siemonsen, the man who conducted the 1993 sample collection and delivered said samples to HJ for AMS c14 testing, is a Danish Businessman. No scientific credentials.

Hans: Your own source says other people did the collecting none the less collecting samples doesn’t require a scientific degree. I’ve had students do it...as long as they do it right.

By Hanslune's logic this guy should be labeled a "fringe" researcher.

Hans: Nope, a fringe researcher is someone who DOESN’T use the scientific metho.

Oh and the AMS testing used elsewhere, such as commented upon in the article above (as used in S. Africa to date old structures), used 300 samples, not just 10 (seven of which were rejected, leaving only 3 for sampling).

Hans: So fine, pay for getting three hundred samples, however the tower will kinda look like a pin cushion. In case you didn't notice but they sampled E I G H T, please read your own links. They then averaged the 8 samples and using standard deviation to come up with a 95% possibility that the tower was built in the 17th. That is what the report said. All the other stuff is made up nonsense - which is why its not in a peer review publication.

One of those "detractors", Alan Watchman, runs his own lab for c14 dating (Data-Roche Watchman, Inc.). I think that gives him particular insight into the issue, and he says there wasn't enough sampling done at Newport.

Hans: Yet he hasn’t put his opinions into a peer review publication, ie he knows he cannot support the contention. Yep more samples are always welcome. How come the Viking society has coughed up the money to pay for more testing?

A. de Bethune (Andre J.) is free to look up on Google, I can't do all the work for you Hans. His paper is: "On the Carbon-14 Analyses of Mortar from the Newport Tower: Theoretical Considerations," I know I have to keep re-posting the link but Hans seems to keep missing it.

Hans: Yes and its not in a peer review publication-something I’ve repeatedly told you – the other guys you kept mentioning didn’t turn out to be scientists right?

Wolter also confirms that Wood Hole Oceanographic dating has returned a date of 1450 for the sample they submitted.

Hans: Great let’s see the peer review publication of that date.

Lets recap, all the authors you pointed out haven't published material against the AMS dates of the Newport tower in peer review publication. The few publications that are against the dates are in non-peer review magazines, by non-experts. Some experts have published in non-peer review but have NOT published in peer review.

this is awesome, i am a minnesota native and its always nice to hear about the local lore and findings. i've always been obsessed with goin around and finding the craziest sites, i wonder what else would be around there? :O

Originally posted by Myollinir
this is awesome, i am a minnesota native and its always nice to hear about the local lore and findings. i've always been obsessed with goin around and finding the craziest sites, i wonder what else would be around there? :O

Hopefully an undisturbed site with a nice Norse burial.

Hans - From my perspective, it doesn't matter when the tower was built, not if it points to the burial site of the runestone. You seem to be willing to go any any length to discount the notion that it was built pre-colonial, then you say how the North Star up a chimney doesn't qualify for the center of the universe, which I took to mean you don't give any credence to the tower pointing to the runstone, that it could just as easily be a coincidence.

So I take it that if their was an argument that you couldn't disagree with that placed the tower being built in the 1400's, you will still say that the tower pointing to the stone proves nothing.

So why are you here? That's where the whole cock blocking metaphor comes in. You don't have the stones to chase down a theory that hasn't already been proven but you can't sleep at night thinking that someone else will. So you spend your days frantically scouring the web for treasure hunters trying to debunk them from their expeditions so you don't feel like you missed out on anything.

Oh yeah, you said students too didn't you. You teach. You are one of the people that get so institutionalized that you never get out into the field. So you resent everyone who does. Why don't you take a year off and go do something crazy even if it may fail.

I bet you have a theory you never told anyone about that you spend a great deal of time trying to talk yourself out of taking seriously because it would require a risk of failure to chase after. Do it Hans, go after your dreams instead of trying to squelch everyone elses, find that treasure and become whole, set yourself free of the institutional protocols you have turned into prison walls that protect you from the outside world and its adventurous bobble heading unwashed masses.

Failure is in not trying. If you chase your dreams, you will find treasure no matter what the result of your expedition is.

reply to post by clandestiny

Personally, I'd like to see you lay out your theory. This thread is doing exactly what it is meant to do...there's a discussion out there, thoughtful give and take. Nobody is denying the possibilities...merely analyzing and critiquing what is being offered up as proof. Anything less is foolishness.

And I hope you're not shy about having your premise critiqued on the go. It's those 'intuitive leaps' that often get folks into trouble, so I'd be careful with them.

But now that you've shown us the trailer...you gonna get on with the movie?


...oh, and a self-edit to point out that I am the Guardian of the Sacred Chimney...not Hans, but I'll bet he envies me for it...

[edit on 5-10-2009 by JohnnyCanuck]

I assume guardian of the sacred chimney means you started this thread and you think Hans wishes it was his so he could throw everyone out and end this discussion so he can sleep better at night knowing he isn't missing out on anything going on in the real world. I really mean it Hans, chase after yours dreams brother, the worst that can happen is you will come up empty handed.

I do not have so much a theory as a personal story. It is evidence. I don’t know what it actually means in the real world because I cannot be everywhere at once. Like I was saying earlier, if there was a peer reviewed study that carbon dated the towers building date, I wouldn’t know if it was correct unless I did it myself, and invented the carbon dating science that was used to prove it. Even then, I would have self doubts. I don’t claim to know what reality is because I can’t be everywhere at once. As long as there are unknowns in the universe, I expect no one else can credibly say otherwise but many do. I am one of them because all we can go on is what we know, otherwise there is no fun in the hunt.

Like I said a few times over, I would like to begin with being asked a question. Like Hans pointed out, rather I am willing to bet it was him, he has no interest in Templar’s whatsoever. So if I started out there, or somewhere else that no one cares about, then I would be droning on before I got started. I figure it I am asked a question or challenged, then the answer must be wanted for a reason of interest surrounding that topic. You say you want to know what the theory is, So it stands to reason something I wrote sparked your interest. What was it and I will start there.

I can pretty much tell this story from any degree it is challenged as it is all encompassing. What I mean is that the story behind the tower and the runestone leads to legends that have never died. I am living proof of that. I was born into what is referred to as a “bloodline.” I was told these stories while living them out in real time. What I mean is that the stories you have historical interest in have never died, or so some would like many to believe, which is likely true.

Like I said, I can’t be everywhere throughout time and in the present at one time in order to know that it all happened and is happening the way it is claimed. But I expect that it did. I can only tell you that here in Washington DC, the sun is shining today and it is pleasant outdoors. I expect that if it is said that a war was once fought here and it was dark and gloomy, I would be inclined to go ahead and believe it without thinking twice about it.

reply to post by JohnnyCanuck

...oh, and a self-edit to point out that I am the Guardian of the Sacred Chimney...not Hans, but I'll bet he envies me for it...

Oh my that guy is still here? You lucky dude. Well I've had him on ignore since his third post.

Really the big mystery to me is why you are even coming here Hans? I don't want you to leave. You're more fun that a barrel of old worn out sneakers. And you give me so many opportunities to comment so I can rack up my 20 and open my own thread, which you are welcome to attend, although I might still be wondering why.

I know why I want you here, because if I can strike a spark to your tired worn out molded old mind, I know I can get a fire going anywhere. But that still leaves me wondering why you want to be here against your own will. It's like you are afraid for anyone to think differently than you because you know you have become too entrenched in the way you see the world around you to change your mind. That is an awful big challenge and I commend you for it. But you might find it easier and even more productive to open your mind a little. Or maybe you just need a change of underwear, who knows what makes you so crusty.

Originally posted by Hanslune
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck

 

...oh, and a self-edit to point out that I am the Guardian of the Sacred Chimney...not Hans, but I'll bet he envies me for it...

Oh my that guy is still here? You lucky dude. Well I've had him on ignore since his third post.

Yah, well, I like it on the fringes, just so long as we know how to work the squelch setting on the ol' Bravo Sierra detector. I am familiar with many of the Templar stories, also much of the bumph concerning pre-Columbian visits. I'd like to see where this goes, but so far it's all sizzle...no steak.

I am still looking for a place to jump in. Let me see if I can find it on my own since I am not getting pointed in any definitive direction. Would you believe me if I told you that the tie, as in suit and tie, is Masonic. I guess I'm looking for a way to link Templar's and their banking system to the creation of capitalism and the founding of the US in a way that will not get me squelched. For me, the most prevalent and provoking symbol of it is the tie, like I said before, as in suit and tie. If we can agree on that, then we can agree that Templar's are everywhere, that is if we agree that Templar's and Freemasons are connected.

Then the question becomes what are they doing here. For that, looking at the origins of the Templar's would make the most sense. I am not ready to give up my last name yet so for the sake of argument, unless you can guess it, let’s say that there is truth in the legend about a secret heritage to the Templar’s founders being of the bloodlines of Jesus as survived through his children by his wife Mary Madeleine.

Ah ah, pull your hand away from that squelch button. I am not saying there is any truth to any of this. I am also not saying that there isn’t. I wouldn't know, I wasn't there. But I can prove that someone wants this to be believed to be possibly true, and who that is, and why. As far as the veracity of the claims behind the mysteries, that is up to you guys to figure out. I am just a game piece on a board laid out by the Gods who I have met in person and know what their names are, in this world, alive today, with their evil little hands in their cookie jar right now, right this minute. I know who the referees are and how the game is laid out better than its designers.

As for whether it is all a part of a contemporary con job or based in historical fact, I cannot prove it either way, not by my standards but probably by yours. Ether way. it is all nonsense to me, a game that has failed but no one knows how to shut it down, except me. I was a fatal part of the game’s design and I can prove it. The issue is will you believe the indisputable facts after they are have been presented to you.

Should I continue

reply to post by clandestiny

My thought here is that your declaration is going to be lost in the middle of a thread that has the Kensington Runestone as a tag. You'd be much better off...and attract a much wider audience on ATS...if you started a new thread, perhaps with a Templar tag, perhaps on the Secret Societies board.

Just a suggestion.

I'm with you on this, Johnny.

Dude needs to read the heading of this section of the board.

There's nothing ancient about the Templars or the Masons.

Well, except the Masons might have some ancient members driving miniature scooters around in parades! LOL

Harte

I haven't got quite enough comments to start my own thread, yet. But I am very close. You asked for Templar, I gave you Templar. How ancient do you want to go back, Punts, Dravidians, Bel and Benjaminites, pre-Mesopotamian vulture worshiping Hebrews. They are all connected to the runestone, at least by those who have put the game board together.

I notice none of you want to tell me to go or ask me a question either. You suggest I go but then what will you do if I take you up on it, go back to talking about concrete? I don't see you getting anywhere with that. You’re busy talking to each other about something you need to be talking to the owners of the tower about to see if you can take enough mortar to do research that no one will contest.

Fell free to ignore me and go back to what you were doing. If after I have enough comments to start my own thread you still haven't taken an interest, I will move on. I have been writing about this a long time. I know I can get attention in those threads. It's just that this process may go smoother if I have academics behind investigating my allegations. But then I have multitudes of scholars who have turned their nose up at it, which is almost as having them in my corner, at least from my side of the tracks. It will give the bobble heads one up on you guys, one they deserve considering how much money they inspire to be put behind you work.

I have graduated to new thread poster status. Thanks for helping me get here.

reply to post by Blackmarketeer


Hey BM, don't let these two ruffle your feathers....they just like to argue for the sake of arguing. They have the closed minded approach to theory. It is all science to them, no common sense needed...they would have been one of the folks that were afraid to sail too far out to sea, fearing falling of the edge of the earth.
It sometime takes common sense to figure out where science won't let you go.....