Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5
Bob Voyles

The Norse Code Stone

123 posts in this topic

15 minutes ago, Bob Voyles said:

 

  extreme academic and "professional" bias.  Much of this bias has come from Scandinavia in the past, and some of this bias still drifts across the pond towards MN today, like an obfuscation-laden fog. 

So anyone who disagrees with you is biased huh? Why can't people have a different opinion than you and not be 'biased'. Please explain to us the difference between 'bias' and professional disagreement?

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
22 hours ago, jmccr8 said:

Way to go, now you will get a bold print reply for not sqwinting you eyes and looking through your eyelashes to see just how compelling his discovery is tisk tisk.

jmccr8

Prophecy fulfilled.

You can always tell when a fringe theory has taken a serious lashing when its poster starts playing with font, size and color. I guess the assumption is, "If I screw around with the text, they won't notice the inherent failings of my ideas."

--Jaylemurph

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bob Voyles said:

Quaentum, thanks for your questions.  (I copy & paste names sometimes, hence the occasional bold.)  First, I'll address the hag stones.  Hag stones are different from these other stoneholes in MN and SD because of two reasons:  Hag stones are generally made by nature, and the holes generally go entirely through the rocks.  Go back to the Part I video and you will see that each of the several rocks making up the proposed encoding have two stoneholes each in them, precisely the same.  Again, this is impossible for nature to accomplish there in that setting.  I checked the stoneholes and none of them go all the way through.  I've never seen or come across a prospective medieval Norse stonehole that goes all the way through the rock.   Here is an immediate reference for you:

https://www.pinterest.com/elisabethro0528/hag-stones/

Hag Stones

"Also known as Witch Stones, Fairy Stones, Holy Stones and Eye Stones, are stones with naturally formed holes running clean through them. These holes are usually formed by centuries of wave action. It is this association with running water (which itself is said to negate the effect of evil that is believed by many people to be the source of the Hag Stone's reputation for guarding their owner against ill-fortune and the Evil Eye."
 
In answer to your other question/comment about the runes on the KRS, I think one can easily turn this around and suppose that the "secret code runes" we're talking about may actually help prove that the KRS is authentic.  In other words, it is very unlikely that a hoaxer in rural MN would have known about the secret code indicated on those late 1800s papers.  Many people who have studied the subject believe the "hooked X" rune found in the papers helps to show that at least that one rune may be attributed to a degree of secrecy being involved with the KRS mission.  As you likely know, Scott Wolter attributes the aforementioned rune to post-Knights Templar and then assigns a fictional "holy bloodline" into the hypothesis, as well as introducing very confusing "Masonic numerology" into the equation as a way to understand the KRS's message.  I do not ascribe to any of this, of course, since I take the message at simple face value.
 
I also do not believe--as someone offered here--that the infamous "dotted R" was created by accident.  I believe that it very obviously was made on purpose, and this rare runic character was basically not known about until recently.  The outcome, then, is about the same as with the hooked-X, in that the use of this dotted R rune on the KRS helps to prove its authenticity; again, a hoaxer would likely not have known about the dotted R.  Unfortunately, there is a can of worms associated with all this:  extreme academic and "professional" bias.  Much of this bias has come from Scandinavia in the past, and some of this bias still drifts across the pond towards MN today, like an obfuscation-laden fog.  

 

I appreciate your reply.  First of all let me say that I have not watched your videos yet because of a lack of time currently to sit for more than a few minutes on the net at one time.  I will, at some point watch them.  Back to the discussion.  It occurs to me that if whatever process is creating a hole or holes in stones were to stop or be disrupted, the hole(s) would only go part way through the stone.  What examination of the stones was made to determine they were man made and not natural?  As far as the KRS.  Both the tailor and the farmer were from Sweden making it quite probable they came into contact with runes.  The tailor occasionally wrote using runes so would have to have a working knowledge of runes and their use.  This coupled with the fact that the tailor created (not used ones he had seen) the specific runes that are almost identical to what is on the KRS gives a high probability that the runes on the KRS are the same ones created by the tailor.  As far as the hooked X it seems that in the 1700's and 1800's, runes from the middle ages were still in use and not only was there a hooked X but also a variety of other letters with the same hook.  Here is a link to an article on it with a piece of a document showing the hook on multiple letters.  The conclusion of the writer may or may not be accurate but it shows that many letters had hooks and that possible the hook x didn't mean anything more than how it was drawn on the parchment.  As far as the dotted R I must do more research first.

 

http://www.jasoncolavito.com/blog/scott-wolter-apparently-solves-mystery-of-hooked-x-but-not-the-way-he-thinks-he-did

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A hooked x is used in Magyar (Hungarians) runes which were used by Carpathian herders up until the 1900s

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hanslune says, "So anyone who disagrees with you is biased huh? Why can't people have a different opinion than you and not be 'biased'. Please explain to us the difference between 'bias' and professional disagreement?"

Thanks for the questions.  First I'd like to mention that a few of the commenters here sound like irksome teenagers...like those who may still think good sport is throwing apples at mailboxes from the back of a pickup truck.  Also, it would help in the conversations here if people would familiarize themselves with the subject matter, first.  I really don't feel like responding to comments from folks who haven't even seen the videos, which are the basis for me coming to this site in the first place.

You're beginning to sound a bit snarky, Hanslune.  No...bias doesn't equate to mere disagreement, and vice versa.  Disagreement is one thing, bias is another.  Bias comes into play in this situation when otherwise well-intentioned and educated people decide to put on self-blinders and follow the "party line," which in this case involves refusing to be open-minded to the notion that Norsemen entered into this remote, far-inland region before the later French.  Then there is absolute, very real peer pressure.  The Minnesota Historical Society, The Minnesota Office of the State Archaeologist and even the Smithsonian are all biased against the idea of the KRS being genuine.  That same kind of bias is clearly seen here from various commenters, too, which makes your inquiry about bias somewhat ironic and funny-sounding, Hanslune.

These so-called "professionals" don't just disagree, they foment policy on the subject and continue to stand in the way of progress because of their biased attitudes.  If these entities were more open-minded, there would be more interest in many of the evidences associated with the KRS and its general medieval time period.  They could investigate and study some of these artifacts and oddities, but their political correctness hinders any approach that involves "fringe" thinking.  Yet, because of inherent bias, these entities I'm talking about are the true fringe thinkers, not being open to any new ideas or information...such as about the proposed Norse Code-stone.  Trolls on blogs also try to hinder any real research by injecting meaningless but negative jabs into well-meaning public discourse.  Why isn't this immediately recognized by you, Hanslune, as juvenile bias being exhibited here?  But, yes, people may certainly have a different opinion than me, without being biased.  If you really want answers to your questions about bias, try your best to absorb this:

Here is the Wikipedia definition of bias:

Bias is the tendency to have an opinion, or view, that is often without considering evidence and other information.

Biases can be learned implicitly within cultural contexts. People may develop biases toward or against an individual, an ethnic group, a nation, a religion, a social class, a political party, theoretical paradigms and ideologies within academic domains, or a species.[1] Biased means one-sided, lacking a neutral viewpoint, or not having an open mind. Bias can come in many forms and is related to prejudice and intuition.[2]

In science and engineering, a bias is a systematic error. Statistical bias results from an unfair sampling of a population, or from an estimation process that does not give accurate results on average.

Please consider looking to Alice Beck Kehoe for a professional who is not biased.  She is very astute and unbiased towards the notion of Norsemen exploring the Upper Midwest, probably related to fur trading.  Do we need to think that Vinland was the only area explored?  That would be foolish, considering the easy water-route down here from Hudson Bay.  Someone like Alice Beck Kehoe is not on the fringe...but others concerned with political correctness are not only biased, but on the fringe of history-truth.  This is the reality of the present situation, in my view.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is nothing bias about Smithsonian. They are open to all theories with backing. I worked with them for a long time. I even recreated tools and weapons for their museums. 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bob Voyles said:

Hanslune says, "So anyone who disagrees with you is biased huh? Why can't people have a different opinion than you and not be 'biased'. Please explain to us the difference between 'bias' and professional disagreement?"

Thanks for the questions.  First I'd like to mention that a few of the commenters here sound like irksome teenagers...like those who may still think good sport is throwing apples at mailboxes from the back of a pickup truck.  Also, it would help in the conversations here if people would familiarize themselves with the subject matter, first.  I really don't feel like responding to comments from folks who haven't even seen the videos, which are the basis for me coming to this site in the first place.

You're beginning to sound a bit snarky, Hanslune.  No...bias doesn't equate to mere disagreement, and vice versa.  Disagreement is one thing, bias is another.  Bias comes into play in this situation when otherwise well-intentioned and educated people decide to put on self-blinders and follow the "party line," which in this case involves refusing to be open-minded to the notion that Norsemen entered into this remote, far-inland region before the later French.  Then there is absolute, very real peer pressure.  The Minnesota Historical Society, The Minnesota Office of the State Archaeologist and even the Smithsonian are all biased against the idea of the KRS being genuine.  That same kind of bias is clearly seen here from various commenters, too, which makes your inquiry about bias somewhat ironic and funny-sounding, Hanslune.

These so-called "professionals" don't just disagree, they foment policy on the subject and continue to stand in the way of progress because of their biased attitudes.  If these entities were more open-minded, there would be more interest in many of the evidences associated with the KRS and its general medieval time period.  They could investigate and study some of these artifacts and oddities, but their political correctness hinders any approach that involves "fringe" thinking.  Yet, because of inherent bias, these entities I'm talking about are the true fringe thinkers, not being open to any new ideas or information...such as about the proposed Norse Code-stone.  Trolls on blogs also try to hinder any real research by injecting meaningless but negative jabs into well-meaning public discourse.  Why isn't this immediately recognized by you, Hanslune, as juvenile bias being exhibited here?  But, yes, people may certainly have a different opinion than me, without being biased.  If you really want answers to your questions about bias, try your best to absorb this:

Here is the Wikipedia definition of bias:

Bias is the tendency to have an opinion, or view, that is often without considering evidence and other information.

Biases can be learned implicitly within cultural contexts. People may develop biases toward or against an individual, an ethnic group, a nation, a religion, a social class, a political party, theoretical paradigms and ideologies within academic domains, or a species.[1] Biased means one-sided, lacking a neutral viewpoint, or not having an open mind. Bias can come in many forms and is related to prejudice and intuition.[2]

In science and engineering, a bias is a systematic error. Statistical bias results from an unfair sampling of a population, or from an estimation process that does not give accurate results on average.

Please consider looking to Alice Beck Kehoe for a professional who is not biased.  She is very astute and unbiased towards the notion of Norsemen exploring the Upper Midwest, probably related to fur trading.  Do we need to think that Vinland was the only area explored?  That would be foolish, considering the easy water-route down here from Hudson Bay.  Someone like Alice Beck Kehoe is not on the fringe...but others concerned with political correctness are not only biased, but on the fringe of history-truth.  This is the reality of the present situation, in my view.

 

So your declaration of bias is directed at anyone who disagrees with you? You have confirmed that. Sadly, I would suggest that the only person here who is biased is yourself.

Alice Beck Kehoe, so yes in her opinion KRS is real. So of course you declare her non biased.......do you see a pattern here?

Again anyone who disagrees with you doesn't do so because they see the evidence differently, they do so to oppose and stop you, that they are juvenile, closed minded, etc, etc.

Take up a mirror if you want to see some bias! lol

 

 

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

30 minutes ago, Piney said:

There is nothing bias about Smithsonian. They are open to all theories with backing. I worked with them for a long time. I even recreated tools and weapons for their museums. 

Its a standard fringe concept that everyone is biased and part of the vast conspiracy to deny 'x' theory. There are no honest people with different opinions - they are all biased or part of the evil academic cabal!

Edited by Hanslune

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Bob Voyles said:

 

You're beginning to sound a bit snarky, Hanslune.  No...bias doesn't equate to mere disagreement, and vice versa.  Disagreement is one thing, bias is another.  Bias comes into play in this situation when otherwise well-intentioned and educated people decide to put on self-blinders and follow the "party line," which in this case involves refusing to be open-minded to the notion that Norsemen entered into this remote, far-inland region before the later French.  Then there is absolute, very real peer pressure.  The Minnesota Historical Society, The Minnesota Office of the State Archaeologist and even the Smithsonian are all biased against the idea of the KRS being genuine.  That same kind of bias is clearly seen here from various commenters, too, which makes your inquiry about bias somewhat ironic and funny-sounding, Hanslune.

These so-called "professionals" don't just disagree, they foment policy on the subject and continue to stand in the way of progress because of their biased attitudes.  If these entities were more open-minded, there would be more interest in many of the evidences associated with the KRS

.

 

Hey, Hanslune: Bob here, in order to hypocritically act like a teenager, won't talk directly to me, although he sure as **** is happy to talk about me. Ask him what (if any) exoerience he has of the academic history field, or if it's just sour grapes than nobody else seems to appreciate his genius like himself.

I think it's ignorant and naive to say any group of historians would agree on any one thing, let alone some infantile idea they're all in some manner of conspiracy of silence. Bob's hardly the first to suggest such a puerile idea, but no one has ever produced a single shred of evidence to justify it.  

--Jaylemurph 

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, jaylemurph said:

I think it's ignorant and naive to say any group of historians would agree on any one thing, let alone some infantile idea they're all in some manner of conspiracy of silence.

Yeah, in the 50's when the accuracy of the Norse sagas were being debated. The consensus* was that they were true but there was no supporting 'hard' evidence to support Norse visits to NA. Once the evidence for L'Anse aux meadows came out. It swung around YET a few still insisted the Norse had not made the voyage - instead Native American/First Nation folks had developed a naval technology, gone to Greenland/Iceland and incorporated a number of Norse traits and technologies.....then returned.

I mean 99.9 went for reality but a few held out.

* As relayed to me by Professor 'Bill' Solheim who lived thru that time and that debate.

 

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Bob Voyles said:

 

Thanks for the questions.  First I'd like to mention that a few of the commenters here sound like irksome teenagers...like those who may still think good sport is throwing apples at mailboxes from the back of a pickup truck.  Also, it would help in the conversations here if people would familiarize themselves with the subject matter, first.  I really don't feel like responding to comments from folks who haven't even seen the videos, which are the basis for me coming to this site in the first place.

 

This is where we  seem to come upon an impasse in the discussion. I have no desire to generate views for your YouTube channel by watching the videos. I am on a forum thread to discuss a topic, not wander elsewither to watch a video or read articles in the opinion section of a magazine.  

 If you are unwilling to set forth the effort of making detailed assertions here why should I make the effort of going to another site and sitting through a video?

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Jarocal said:

 If you are unwilling to set forth the effort of making detailed assertions here why should I make the effort of going to another site and sitting through a video?

AH HA, you are biased against video!

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Bob has mistaken "bias" with " no time for bull ****" 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Jarocal said:

 I have no desire to generate views for your YouTube channel by watching the videos. I am on a forum thread to discuss a topic, not wander elsewither to watch a video or read articles in the opinion section of a magazine. 

This is an awesome use of vocabulary.

So I imagine next we'll be treated to a post in variegated colors and font styles b****ing about how your use of two-syllable and greater words makes you part of the Great Cabal of Meanies relentlessly following Bob and scotching his attempts to "educate" us all.

--Jaylemurph

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

kmt_sesh, there seems to be a problem with this blog.  The degree of rancor being exhibited is uncalled for according to the wishes of the blog host, as indicated in the blog rules.  Since no one here cares to intervene, I will be on my way.  Frankly, I didn't expect to be attacked here by juvenile cyber-bullies, and I didn't expect it to stand.  It's always a pity when troublemakers are allowed to interrupt blog exchanges.  This is no longer worth the trouble of dealing with in an adult manner, so the trolls' efforts here have paid off, much to the shame of those ostensibly charged with running a clean and welcoming blog.  Attempting to share my discoveries here was a mistake, but only because of the hostility shamefully displayed and uncorrected.  Goodbye.  I will not be responding to any future comments/questions here. 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's ultimately your choice, Bob. I don't really want to see you go. But this is not a blog, this is a discussion forum. As a Moderator with a lot of experience, I can say with honesty that you do indeed seem to see all disagreement as bias. You would appear to think that everyone who does not regard the extant evidence the way you do, is serving some sort of agenda. Pretty much every time someone has expressed a viewpoint, you've responded with charges of bias and have dissed academic views. That is going to wind people up. You probably didn't intend it to be that way, but there it is.

I would suggest an actual blog like WordPress. You will have full control over content that way, and can regulate comments.

Let me know if you'd like me to close and lock this thread so there can be no further comment.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did anyone watch part 3 of his videos (The one with the esoteric 10 uses of medieval stone holes)?

 I am mildly interested in his conjecture for their purpose but n ot enough to waste mobile data on YouTube.

 I hope Bob does realize by now that he is in the discussion forum not blogging section of this site.

But if anyone could bullet point the ten purposes (evidence with attribution would be nice but as the OP seems intent on not returning) of the stone holes to save me bandwidth... :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, jaylemurph said:

This is an awesome use of vocabulary.

So I imagine next we'll be treated to a post in variegated colors and font styles b****ing about how your use of two-syllable and greater words makes you part of the Great Cabal of Meanies relentlessly following Bob and scotching his attempts to "educate" us all.

--Jaylemurph

I don't mind his educating me by sharing whatever conjectures he has (and discussing them) here. I have no interest in playing "chase down the information" the OP should be supplying directly here. This is a discussion thread not an advert area for YouTube channels or opinion sections of magazines.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shame he didn't answer my Friday post.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Quaentum said:

Shame he didn't answer my Friday post.

He's also ignored mine.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Kenemet said:

He's also ignored mine.

Apparently the blog feature in this thread wasn't working properly and was allowing biased people to post material that countered his theory.

jmccr8

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jmccr8 said:

Apparently the blog feature in this thread wasn't working properly and was allowing biased people to post material that countered his theory.

jmccr8

Darnation is that happening again. I understand if you post at Graham Hancock or Crystaltalk that usually doesn't happen.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With respect, let's put this one to bed. The OP has annoounced his departure, so not much use in trying to continue the discussion.

Thread closed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.