Still dont saw - "The study on symbols was exactly made using the author (Wiligut) papers..." - ONE MORE time question, let us to know this super book or books ))))
If you don't know Wiligut wrote a lot, and you never saw anything wrote from Wiligut, and you don't know anything, this is not my problem. This is only your ignorance. And you showed many in your words.
About original SSHR with diamonds - we are can see examples in Gottleb's book and simple examples here, that was showed
Again, I think you really have no idea of what you say. I quote Gottlieb word from his book: "
The ring was allegedly acquired directly from the family by a well known dealer. [...] it is not possible to say this (pre 1945 installation) with certainty, as old stones could have been usd by a subsequent owner to enhance his ring".
Again when Gottlieb speks about stones on TK rings: "
It is my peronal opinion..."
Is this the best of your evidences? I didn't know Craig opinions were period evidences!
Your statement is ridiculous. Laughable.
Runology is not a science, what you and your friends have studied there are just assumptions and conjectures, from tabloid newspapers or books of a similar level, all these are fantasies that, as a rule, invented themselves and believed in them themselves)))
You have a so huge knowledge that you even know what you have not yet read! How can you judge something without knowing anything about it? You are like God!
Easy to explain: if Wiligut wrote a symbol and explained that symbol, there is no conjecture to copy Wiligut words. But you as all the rest of the "experts" will never learn to learn. You think to know everything, but what you write is childish. You only try to attack, exactly as a child.
My arguments on the stones are stated above, if you haven't learned to read - not my problem ))))
Arguments? Proofs? Evidences? Where are them?
Gottlieb book is a proof? Read above! Ah ah ah ah ah ah!!!!
In all your post there is nothing. So, we are still waiting for you to post something interesting.
