They're recycling THAT old fraud again? Please, don't anybody be so gullible as to purchase the upcoming book, or buy the argument. It belongs with "bigfoot" and "Nessie" hoaxes.
There is a College Prof. at Moorhead State U. who thinks it's bogus, and the Star and Tribune has generally printed negative opinions. However, as the evidence has mounted, the tide has swung towards authenticity. I have come to be of that opinion.
Wolter started his investigations as a non-believing skeptic. He is a forensic geologist who tests concrete failure and the like. He concluded that the stone had been inscribed when it was dressed, and that it had been in the ground for greater than 200 years, which would predate Ohman, the farmer who found it.
This was done scientifically by measuring the oxidization of one of the several types of Mica that are found in Graywakke(sp?). If the Stone is bogus, then this fact must be explained, no?
There have been other skeptics who have pointed to Runic flaws. All now have been proven to have been in use in 1362. If it is a fake, then Ohman would have had to be an expert in medieval Runes. He had a 6th grade education. Was he just lucky?
If a theory is true, then all the little facts will affirm the theory. If one arises that cannot be explained by the theory, then the theory is wrong and needs to be reformulated. An example is, if OJ is guilty, then he must have owned size 12 Bruno Maglie shoes.
It looks like the ancillary facts are lining up in support of "genuineness."
If you wish to call it a fraud, then explain how the above facts work in your scenario, in an equally credible or more credible fashion.
If you can, I will gladly come over to your side.
It is clear that you have strong feelings about it but I have always found it interesting and I would like to know more.