Replies

We agree that the KRS must either be a hoax or not a hoax. If is a hoax, then the details will show it. The same thing is true if genuine.

The text is similar to English construction, I will grant you. The word "ded" (dead) is English. One possible explanation is that it is a fake and carver had English as a first language with some knowledge of Runes, perhaps a school boy. Or was he a part of the expedition in 1362? Further, what sort of "proof" is to be inferred from the "transcriptions". I wonder what medieval monks did with all their imperfect copies. My guess is that they kept the boys warm on chilly nights. If we found some, would we infer they were trying to "fake" the Bible?

However, even before we weigh this against all the Rune figures being used in 1362, as well as every word, which modern scholars did not know in 1898, we must weigh it against the physical evidence, which cannot lie.

If you say it's a hoax, then you must explain the Mica weathering. Scott Wolter told me that Gaywacke has four different types of Mica embedded in it. He drilled cores
into the bottom of the stone to remove unweathered material for comparison. He separated out the type that weathers fastest. Then he compared it against samples from the undressed surface, the dressed surface and from the bottom of the carved Rune grooves. The results: The undressed portions were much more weathered than the dressed; The dressed surfaces were weathered the same as the carvings; It would have taken at least 200 years for that weathering to happen.

Now you might say that Scott Wolter is mistaken or dishonest, but he is an expert who set out to prove the Stone was a fake, and wound up becoming a believer in its authenticity. He removed enough material from the bottom of the Stone so that others in the future can repeat his experiments or test the slower weathering Micas. You can call him if you like. He will be happy to talk to you. My judgement is that he is an honest, competent man.

If you judge it a hoax, you must present a theory of how it could be a hoax, with the above facts a part of the explanation. Otherwise you must change your opinion, as I have.

Nobody is claiming the kensington stone itself isn't ancient. Most stones outside of regions of active volcanism are eons old. What is in dispute is the age of the inscription on the stone. And a single report that finds mica weathering on the stone, which can be faked by mechanical or chemical means, does not counter all the other things about the inscription that demonstrate its inauthenticity.

Here are just some of the things wrong with the kensington stone:

The text is written using a combination of post medieval norwegian, swedish, badly spelled modern english, and one icelandic word spelled identically to the same word used in contemporary transcriptions of the icelandic sagas. The grammar and sentence structure are that of modern english.
The date and numbers in the inscription bear no similarity to that used in authentic runic texts. Their form is barely disguised modern dating and numbering.
The runes and their usage is nothing like those used in actual authentic runic inscriptions. The runes on the kensington stone come from many different time periods and locations. More to the point, the kensington stone inscription includes many "secret" runes commonly used by scandinavian tradesman societies during the runic revival that occurred during the middle 1800's.
To support the "discovery", various paper copies of the runic inscription were disseminated by the discoverer. Upon examination, it turns out these paper copies were not exact renditions of the runic inscription. One would assume that they would be exact if they had been copied from the stone inscription. From their text, the opposite was true; the stone was copied from them. Taken together, these pages are obviously rough drafts done before the inscription was carved in the stone.
Other papers bearing modern tradesman runic inscriptions with texts nearly identical to the kensington stone have recently surfaced. These documents predate the stone's "discovery", but not the claimed medeival date of it's inscription.

There are a lot of other things that are wrong about the kensington stone which clearly demonstrate it is a hoax. Do you want more?

More to the point, it is possible to artificially wear inscriptions. Given the number of people who have demonstrated an almost religious need for the kensington stone to be genuine, I wouldn't rule that possibility out. However, the probability of an actual viking in the 1300's carving a runestone using modern swedish, norwegian, icelandic, and english with a modern english grammar and sentence structure using tradesman runes from the 1800's is an absolute zero. The chance that papers from the mid 1800's with almost exact copies of the pecular runic inscription could have been written while the stone was purportedly still in the ground is also zero.

I have no doubt that Scott Wolter is being honest in his findings. I also have no doubt that he has been fooled, just like so many others have been by the kensington hoax.