Here are some images:
 |
| [orientation is off 90 degrees on this last image] |
 |
| Arrow showing location of Hooked X mark on rubbing of Westford Knight |
No doubt that critics will attempt to downplay the significance of this mark and/or argue it is a hoax of some kind. Regarding the possibility of hoax, I will note that the likelihood is negligible for two reasons:
1. The weathering of the Hooked X mark (see below).
2. The fact that the mark appears on a plaster cast made of the Knight many years before Scott Wolter began his research on the Kensington Rune Stone and first identified (and popularized) the Hooked X rune as an important clue to the Rune Stone's origin.
I also want to observe that, in reading some of the reviews of "America Unearthed," some skeptics seem unwilling to concede that even a single artifact analyzed on the show evidences even the possibility of pre-Columbian exploration of America. Let me state that another way: In these critics' minds, there is a 100% chance that 100% of the artifacts are fakes/hoaxes. I'm sorry, but that is not the world I live in. The world I live in is gray, where parts of history are unknown. This is not to say that every AU episode makes a compelling case, but the idea that every episode and every artifact is 100% flawed is untenable to me and, quite frankly, makes the critics look close-minded and agenda-driven.
I am happy to answer any questions, but I will not allow posts that are in my judgment uncivil.
Finally, here is an earlier post from 10/7/14 that I have copied and pasted in this post for easy reference:
***********************************
In late June I posted some images of what appear to be a Hooked X or Forked X on the Westford Knight carving. On August 31 researcher Jerry Lutgen, along with geologist Scott Wolter, came to Westford to photograph and examine the mark. I won't try to describe Jerry's work other than to say he uses digital imaging to create 3D images and models of the carvings he studies. Here is a color image of the Hooked X mark:
As Jerry explained it to me, because the rock is not a flat surface, the thing to focus on here is the comparative depth of the lines in question, not their absolute depth. What we are looking for is a consistency in the relative depth of the lines in question (this consistency shows a man-made origin rather than a naturally occurring one).
Looking at the X (you may need to zoom in), the "hook," and the 2 "word separator" dots on either side, we see that the upper left stem, the lower left stem, the upper right stem, the "hook" stem and the left dot all contain light blue "punch" marks within the green-colored surface. The lower right stem and the right dot are solid green amid the yellowish/orange-colored surface.
Looking at the color chart on the right of the image, we see that all the carved lines/dots in question are approximately one to one-and-a-half color gradations in depth--in other words, carved or punched at a relatively similar depth. Again, this points to a man-made origin.
We can next compare the Hooked X mark with the sword portion of the carving:
This sword area is a relatively flatter surface, and we see that the punch marks are mostly light green amid a yellowish surface (around the pommel) or dark green amid a light green surface (near the cross-guard). Again, we have a carved/punched depth equal to approximately one color gradation.
Scott Wolter has not reviewed all the data yet, but he and I had a long telephone conversation on September 26 and his preliminary conclusion is that it is 85-90% likely that the mark is indeed a man-made Hooked X carved at a time contemporaneous to the sword carving. As I understand it (and Scott has not reviewed this post), this conclusion is based on the following factors:
1. The orientation of the mark is perfectly consistent with the orientation of the rest of the carving.
2. The "word separator" dots are equally spaced on either side of the mark and positioned similarly to separator dots in other runic carvings.
3. The carving depth is consistent within the Hooked X itself and also consistent as between the Hooked X and the sword (see above).
4. The weathering profile within the Hooked X mark is consistent with the weathering within the sword carving.
5. It is extremely unlikely that a Hooked X mark and a pair of separator dots, all appearing in the proper orientation, would somehow naturally form on the face of the Westford Knight carving.
When I asked Scott why this only added up to 85-90% certainty, he laughed and said that his only hesitation was that finding a Hooked X on the Westford Knight carving was simply "too good to be true."
