Why doesn't this article mention the "transcriptions" of the kensington stone that were later produced by Olof Ohman while promoting the kensington stone? It turns out, the runes on these supposed copies do not match the runes on the stone exactly, or each other exactly. When examined together, they were clearly not copied from the stone, but were rough drafts done before the carving.
Also, the sentence structure and grammar of the stone has little in common with old norsk, but resembles modern english quite well. Every expert on old norse languages that has look at the stone has declared it a hoax.
It amazes me how every few years or so, someone drags up the kensington hoax again. We know the scandinavians were in North America centuries before Columbus. There is actual proven physical evidence of their presence in eastern Canada. Yet for some reason, certain people with scandinavian ancestors don't think that's good enough but insist on some mythical scandinavian empire in North America and repeatedly put forth the kensington hoax as proof.
No doubt, when we finally get to mars, the same people will find a runestone there too.
I couldn't care - on the face of it: it sounds interesting.
There were also deathbed confessions by relations of the perpetrators.
The best summation of this hoax is contained in the book, Ancient Mysteries. Highly recommended to one and all for a very informed look at historical curiosities and mysteries, including this one.
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.