Location is Everything

[uniface]

http://www.pasthorizonspr.com/index.php ... -300-years

What's the likelihood that, if this had been discovered in Canada rather than Sweden, there would be a flurry of articles by now "debunking" it as a "proven forgery" ?

[kbs2244]

Well, of course.
As you say,
some things are “supposed” to be where there are,
and others are not “supposed” to be there.

But 300 years ago is in the "historic" period of NA.
Some one would have seen and written about it in English or French.

[uniface]

The one in Sweden was recorded long ago, but no one could find it again until recently.

http://www.sunnyway.com/runes/americanstones.html is worth reading, IMHO.

As are some of the responses to the airy dismissals like "The Kensington Runestone was repeatedly analysed by runologists and linguists and dismissed as a hoax . . . Thorwald’s Rock is now considered to be a hoax . . . The consensus is that the stone is actually a hoax" at
http://www.vikingrune.com/2009/05/top-t ... ng-hoaxes/

The Grail in America story on the history channel ties the Templars to the Kensington runestone. (I don’t buy it) but Scot Wolter tested the runestone and determined the runes had to have been carved hundreds of years ago. The weathering of the runes cannot be faked.
This refutes the claim that Olaf Ohman the finder had carved it in the late 1800s.
While researching the runes in Scandinavia, Wolters also found the 5 or 6 runes that the experts had claimed were not yet in use in 1362. All these runes have been found on runestones carved before the 1300s.

Wolters then also found that a flag or hook on the “X” is the mark of templars and masons.

Regarding the Kensington Runestone, there is certainly good evidence that it is not a hoax. For instance the dotted R rune found in several places on the stone. Though a medieval rune form, it was not known in the 19th century (it was not rediscovered by scholars until the 1930s). It is the rune for the palatal R sound, and the three instances it is found in the Kensington inscription, it serves that purpose. I can see no reasonable scenario where a 19th century forger would or could have put such a rune in the inscription.

The date on the stone, 1362, also lends credence to the case for authenticity. There is a 16th century document which notes that an expedition returned from a voyage beyond Greenland in 1364, compatible with the Kensington date. However in the 19th century, this voyage was considered to be an English voyage, completely unsuitable for a forger suggesting a Norse expedition to use (1347 would have been a far better date, as there was published information noting ship arriving in Iceland from Markland).

These are just a couple of pieces of evidence that would suggest the Kensington Rune Stone should not be considered a hoax. There are certainly others. Hopefully you will reconsider putting this in your list.

Well I am Olaf Ohmans grandson. I’m pretty darn sure he did not make the stone. Also the book of Wolters is pretty well done and proves the writing is as old as the time frame claimed. I wish I had the stone back from the state of Minn as it’s claimed to still point ownership to my grandfather. Note I’m the only one in the Ohman clan to feel this way. My grandfather could not read runes fact had and got nothing in return for finding the stone other than feeling bad about his rep. I am proud of him for standing his ground

[Minimalist]

Gunne and Åsa had this stone and arch erected for Önd, their son. He died on Ekerö. He is buried in the graveyard. Fastulv inscribed the runes. Gunne erected this stone slab.”

You have to admit that it doesn't talk about Vikings bringing Phasers to North America to mine copper. What it says is pretty mundane.

[uniface]

Make some random choices in nearly any bookstore, at any news stand, TV, radio, DVDs &c.

Evaluate for quality/significance/non-mundane-ness.

Shlock, like "the rise of the middle class," seems to be an historical constant.