KRS: Blegen's dishonesty Author: Yuri Kuchinsky Date: 1998/06/17 Forums: sci.archaeology, soc.history, alt.conspiracy _________________________________________________________________ Greetings, all, Well, now prompted by so many urgent recommendations from various parties for me to read Blegen, I went out and got his book out of the library (T. Blegen, KRS: NEW LIGHT ON AN OLD RIDDLE, St. Paul, 1968). My conclusion? I'm saying it quite simply: Blegen is a shameless and pathetic liar, besides being a hopeless obfuscator with clear paranoid tendencies. Happy now, Mr. Weller? Here's Blegen's Big Lie that he repeats a number of times in the book: "When it is realized ... that authoritative runologists, with no dissenting voices, have pronounced the inscription modern ..." (p. 109) And again in a somewhat milder form: "Since we are dealing with an inscription that runologists say is fraudulent..." (p. 36) These are barefaced lies, of course. On p. 116 of his book, Nilsestuen gives a list of at least 20 highly eminent runologists from the best Universities around the world who supported KRS. Nothing more needs to be said about this... So now we understand where Donna is coming from. Yes, if the Big Boss of Minnesota archaeologists Theodore C. Blegen hisself lies through his teeth like this, what do you expect from his various lesser minions? It would be quite a waste of my time to go through Blegen's book in great detail and to point out his innumerable red herrings, obfuscations, and paranoid fantasies. His general thesis is that a Far-ranging and Sinister Conspiracy planted the Stone under the tree a few years before it was found. None of this is spelled in too much detail of course. Just a lot of most ridiculous insinuations are produced, and he considers this enough basis to accuse honest and poor working class people of lies and criminal activities. This sort of elitism is beyond contempt. Nevertheless, if I still had any doubts about KRS, I could have written about many details in Blegen that clearly support KRS authenticity. He did manage to include some useful historical evidence in his book, I suppose, in between the times when the paranoia got the best of him. For example, we now know why Prof. Breda, the first professional scholar to pronounce his views upon the Stone, failed so miserably to investigate this find adequately. It turns out that he _actually had no doubts_ that the Stone was found under a tree, and that the tree was pretty old! His rationalization for this professional failure of his, for failing to describe the tree? He was actually of the opinion that some fantastic "prankster" (who also happened to be a soldier in the US Army -- go and figure out how he knew all this!!!) from the time when the area was still being settled by Scandinavians, ca. "30-40 years" ago (p. 167), just up and decided to play such a prank -- to inscribe the Stone and to bury it into the ground! "There were white people in that county before it was settled in the early sixties. ... Now suppose that among these soldiers of Uncle Sam there was a young Swede who had enjoyed a good school education in the old country." (p. 168) Thus spake Prof. Breda... Ahem... Obviously, our quite fantastic "young Swedish soldier" just was sure like hell that the Farmer Ohman will be there 40 years later to look for the Stone in the middle of some desolate bush... I suppose such idiocy just may make sense if one would include into this "Breda Hypothesis" also that Ohman must have been guided by the Space Alien? The conspiracy deepens... And here's a nice little side-glance adding to KRS being authentic. John K. Daniels, a Minnesota sculptor, examined the Stone carefully in 1955. He pronounced that "the carving had been done with "sure deft strokes"", and that the job may have "taken about two hours" (p. 118). Sure as hell this was not some hopeless amateur "prankster". A sculptor should know about such things... Blegen reports that four photos were taken of KRS back in 1899 (p. 122). Unfortunately nobody bothered to take the photo of the tree. Because nobody at the time could really doubt that the Stone was found under that tree, since there were so many eyewitnesses, and so many reliable descriptions of the tree in question? I guess so. It was only many years later that deceitful debunkers like Wahlgren started to try to cast doubt on the size of the tree. Blegen accuses Ohman of being the master-mind of this "forgery". Such idiocy makes one wonder about Blegen's head. These are the depths of deceit and irrationality that the sainted Professional Archaeologists will descend to if the defending of their turf be at stake... Regards, Yuri. Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.globalserve.net/~yuku UPDATED "Contrariwise," continued Tweedledee, "if it was so, it might be, and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic!" -- Lewis Carroll, "Through the Looking Glass" _________________________________________________________________Click here to go one level up in the directory.