The Museum of Hoaxes
Kensington Rune Stone Update
Posted By:
Hairy Houdini
May 27, 2005
 Uncoded? No way... yes, way:
http://wcco.com/topstories/local_story_143121108.html
Category: History; Replies: 48

Comments
skepticality
Member
Posted: Fri May 27, 2005 | 10:36 PM
Interesting,

I'm looking for more information on this one, sounds like a good topic to research for an upcoming show.
Captain Al
in Vancouver Island, Canada
 Member
Posted: Fri May 27, 2005 | 11:11 PM
How could Norwegians have traveled all the way to present-day Minnesota in 1362 without leaving more evidence than this? If this were true, we would have known about it long ago.
Captain Al
in Vancouver Island, Canada
 Member
Posted: Fri May 27, 2005 | 11:21 PM
Skepticality,
The person to interview for this story is Dr. Kenneth L. Feder, Department of Anthropology, Central Connecticut State University. He is the author of "Frauds, Myths and Mysteries, Science and Pseudoscience in Archaeology" and has dealt with subjects like this.
<a href="http://www.anthropology.ccsu.edu/fraudsweb/frauds.htm">Frauds, Myths and Mysteries</a>

<a href="http://www.anthropology.ccsu.edu/faculty/feder/Feder.html">Dr. Kenneth L. Feder</a>
LaMa
in Europe
 Member
Posted: Sat May 28, 2005 | 03:03 AM
oooooooohhhh goody goody goody, the Knights Templar are involved! Maybe they brought the Holy Grail there, or the ten commandments, or the Ark of the Covenant, or the offspring of Jesus and Mary Magdalene... And Chuck, does this create a link between Minnesota, a monster/eel in Lake Superior, and Nessie? I tell ya, they were worshipping the Giant Eel! Probably sacrificing young virgins to it too....
Winona
in USA
 Member
Posted: Sat May 28, 2005 | 11:01 AM
oh! something i am interested in.

"How could Norwegians have traveled all the way to present-day Minnesota in 1362 without leaving more evidence than this? "

You're forgetting about L'Anse-aux-Meadows, where the Vikings settled 500 years before Columbus even thought of getting to N.America. That places them already in North America. Since they don't know what happened to the Vikings there, could it be possible that that was the jumping off point for them to go other places?

Plus, don't forget that many Iroquois had blue eyes when we got here. 😉
Winona
in USA
 Member
Posted: Sat May 28, 2005 | 11:10 AM
plus, they have proven that the vikings could have gotten to north american in their longships - see Thor Heyrdahls' Kontiki and Ra expeditions , that showed such journeys were possible.
Hairy Houdini
Posted: Sat May 28, 2005 | 11:59 AM
Thor Heyerdahl RULES... I have a hardcover copy of "Aku Aku" by Thor, a first printing of "Kon-Tiki" in paperback, and a first print of "The Ra Expeditions", also in paperback... Nothing like Rapa Nui Rapture... Thor IS a Moa, I think
Winona
in USA
 Member
Posted: Sat May 28, 2005 | 12:43 PM
oh awesome hairy! we have the first ed. kon-tiki, but i've been keeping an eye out for others. i believe i have some other books on viking & viking style expoloration, but they are still buried in boxes from the move. :red:
Captain Al
in Vancouver Island, Canada
 Member
Posted: Sat May 28, 2005 | 12:47 PM
I didn't forget about L'Anse-aux Meadows. We know they were there because they left the evidence. If they had traveled further they would have left other evidence. The fact that no evidence for their presence is found between L'Anse-aux Meadows and Minnesota is a strong indication that they were not there unless they were able to fly.

Journeys like Heyerdahl's were not necessary to prove that early travel to North America was possible because we know their boats were seaworthy. It could theoretically be done in a bathtub if one were foolish enough to try. In fact there was a fellow from Ireland who crossed the Atlantic in a Zodiac inflatable. It shows that almost anything is possible if you are brave enough.

As for Heyerdahl, most anthropolgists discount his theories about human migration based on modern archaeological and DNA evidence.
Hairy Houdini
Posted: Sat May 28, 2005 | 01:02 PM
All too true about my man Thor, Capt Al... Thor proved more of what was Possible, rather than what was Probable, at least in terms of his Kon-Tiki and Ra adventures... he has, in his later years, in my understanding, gathered a great deal of oral and anecdotal evidence from Easter Islanders regarding their history... Thor is more of an adventurer, than scientist or archeologist... Hell of a guy, tho
Captain Al
in Vancouver Island, Canada
 Member
Posted: Sat May 28, 2005 | 07:41 PM
Yup. He sure milked that Kon-Tiki stunt for all it was worth. It gave him the resources to make a career out of adventure. Ironically there was nothing to prove since we already knew some primitive civilizations make incredible sea voyages long ago. The Vikings, Polynesians and Chinese were well known for it.
To be fair though, I don't think Heyerdahl ever tried to deceive anybody. I think he really did believe the things he wrote about.
Maegan
in Tampa, FL - USA
 Member
Posted: Sun May 29, 2005 | 07:41 AM
...I have read lots of fiction stories that that are based on explorers coming to the American continents long before Columbus...so the idea itself doesn't really seem new. There is a lack of evidence though...I guess that's what makes it seem unlikely that anything really occured.

If someone came here to get away from persocutors, why would the encript proof? If they were alone...why would they feel a need to encript something?
BugbearSloth
in earth, 3rd planet, sol system
 Member
Posted: Sun May 29, 2005 | 11:40 AM
Meagan, they would encrypt it because they are the Knights Templar and don't want to give away the secret of the Oak Island money pit (where the holy grail AND the ark of the covenant are buried) to anyone but other Kights Templar:

http://www.oakislandtreasure.co.uk/

It would seem more probable that Norwegians exploring North America 600 years ago would not leave much of a trace. Early American artifacts from 300 years ago are already fairly well buried when not used (such as New Amsterdam). Trying to find artifacts from Norwgian explorers would be like trying to find a very small needle in a very, very large haystack. Also, there is anecdotal evidence that Orientals and Africans travelled to South America hundreds of years ago in the way of statuary that have remarkable Oriental and Negroid features. Such pieces are very rare. Do they directly prove that such people visited South America a long time ago? No. But the statues did not apear out of thin air, either.
Hairy Houdini
Posted: Sun May 29, 2005 | 05:22 PM
hmmm...I decipher the inscription as: "spill the wine, dig that girl...you put your left foot in, you put your left foot out...30 yard dash to the out house, Willie make it, Betsy won't"...but- I used a Little Orphan Annie decoder ring, so, it might be a bit off by a letter or two. Sorta
Winona
in USA
 Member
Posted: Mon May 30, 2005 | 07:35 PM
I thought those decoder rings only ever spelled out "drink more ovaltine" 😉
Hairy Houdini
Posted: Mon May 30, 2005 | 07:38 PM
or: "You'll shoot your eye out". Hey- I'm a fierce furnace fighter from wayback. I know this, because, I've recieved a major award.
Eoanthropus Dawsoni
Member
Posted: Mon May 30, 2005 | 10:14 PM
More nonsense from Minnesota.

The Kensington Rune Stone is one of my favorite hoaxes. I find it quite amusing that so many people continue to take it seriously, but I guess that speaks quite well for whoever created the thing. It certainly did take some talent to pull that one off.

I've seen the rock a few times and have also visited Rune Stone Park in Douglas County MN. The runestone is kept at a museum in Alexandria MN (although it is occasionally gone on road trips). The actual site where it was "discovered" is 10-15 miles away, but they have a nice little park there and it is worth the drive if one has time.

In my opinion the best source on the Kensington Rune Stone is: The Kensington Rune Stone New Light on an Old Riddle, by Theodore Blegen and published by the Minnesota Historical Society. The book covers the linguistic and historic problems with the rune engraving and also closely examines some of the characters involved with the stone. I recommend it for anyone interested in the topic.
Winona
in USA
 Member
Posted: Mon May 30, 2005 | 11:05 PM
Hairy, last Christmas one of my favorite stores was selling a tshirt that had a pic of Ralphie, and 'you'll shoot your eye out, kid' on it. I've been regretting not buying it ever since. 😉
Maegan
in Tampa, FL - USA
 Member
Posted: Tue May 31, 2005 | 08:19 AM
Oriental is an object. Asian is a people.
Charybdis
in Hell
 Member
Posted: Tue May 31, 2005 | 08:31 AM
Consider yourselves educated. 😊
Oaky
in Down a hole, as per usual
 Member
Posted: Mon Jun 13, 2005 | 03:49 AM
Poor old Thor... as a kid I found his Kon Tiki expedition fascinating. But later, when I visited the national museum in Fiji, where there was a thorough and critical review of his work, it was so disappointing. Of course, today we have DNA analysis and know that Thor got is v wrong. Stll as was said, the point was made (for the first time) that ocean travel did not prevent worldwide movement of people from v early times. BTW Thor did not work alone on that: he was invited to do so by an international congress of archaeologists sometime in the early 1950s.

Oak Island is my thing. After 210 years of treasure hunting, the company that owns the land and has a treasure trove licence decided it would be nice to have an archaeologist take a look. Sort of. The place is totally devastated; contamination goes deep into bedrock.

This is a good example of how works of one group are later mistaken by a later group as 'original. Throughout the 19th century, treasure hunters saw 'new' evidence of human activity - which was in fact merely the unrecorded, or forgotten work of the previous bunch - and misinterpreted it as evidence of the pit's originators. Plus they didn't understand how their shafts and tunnels would affect the geology, or water table.

The 20th century then saw its commercialisation: first tourists, then books and now Hollywood. It's become a minor industry which has spawned vast, fetid mounds of bull....

So, I have just created a project management website for those helping me work on this. It also has section open to the public. Come along if you're interested:
<a href="http://oakisland.esolutionswork.com">History of the Oak island treasure hunt</a>
You'll be most welcome.

Cheers!
Mark-N-Isa
in Midwest USA
 Member
Posted: Thu Jun 30, 2005 | 02:02 AM
I disagree with you Maegan that Oriental is an object and Asian is a people.

There are plenty of "Asians" that aren't Oriental. Indians, Middle Eastern, etc. etc.

Not that I really care, just like to jab at ya once in a while! :cheese:
Maegan
in Tampa, FL - USA
 Member
Posted: Thu Jun 30, 2005 | 05:23 AM
Sorry, you're wrong. (It might not seem like it, but I really <i>do</i> hate to say that.)

Oriental is used to describe culture.

It can also be considered a derogatory term, or slightly backwards term to refer to people (b/c while you are partly right, it has been used to refer to people during the 19th century). I have many <i>Asian</i> friends that have educated me on this. They have advised that the term "oriental" is slightly derogatory, but is still generally taken inoffensively. I've been advised that it CAN be used, but if you have another term (such as Asian), it would be preferred.
David B.
Member
Posted: Thu Jun 30, 2005 | 07:11 AM
I can't be bothered to transcribe the OED entry, but this from http://www.yourdictionary.com is basically the same

Asian:
[adj.] Of or relating to Asia or its peoples, languages, or cultures.
[n.] 1. A native or inhabitant of Asia. 2. A person of Asian descent.

Oriental:
[adj.] 1. Of or relating to the countries of the Orient or their peoples or cultures; eastern. 2. Of or designating the biogeographic region that includes Asia south of the Himalaya Mountains and the islands of the Malay Archipelago.
[n.] (Often Offensive) An Asian.

Usage Note: Asian is now strongly preferred in place of Oriental for persons native to Asia or descended from an Asian people. [...] The real problem with Oriental is more likely its connotations stemming from an earlier era when Europeans viewed the regions east of the Mediterranean as exotic lands full of romance and intrigue, the home of despotic empires and inscrutable customs. At the least these associations can give Oriental a dated feel, and as a noun in contemporary contexts (as in the first Oriental to be elected from the district) it is now widely taken to be offensive. However, Oriental should not be thought of as an ethnic slur to be avoided in all situations. As with Asiatic, its use other than as an ethnonym, in phrases such as Oriental cuisine or Oriental medicine, is not usually considered objectionable.

So there you are!
Eoanthropus Dawsoni
Member
Posted: Thu Jun 30, 2005 | 08:45 AM
It is politically incorrect to use Oriental rather than Asian. However people who chose to feel offended can always find a reason to feel offended, therefore I do not worry too much about what term may be in fashion at any given time.


Oriental is also used to denote Byzantine Rite Churches.
Maegan
in Tampa, FL - USA
 Member
Posted: Thu Jun 30, 2005 | 09:13 AM
Oookkay...Back on topic now, shall we? I realize that my post was the first off-topic, but this thread is about a rock.
Jade Sanstead
Posted: Mon May 01, 2006 | 09:06 PM
The Kensington Rune stone is real and has been undeniably proven so.

A new book that will really show it's authenticity is, "The Kensington Rune Stone, New Compelling Evidence"

By Scott F. Wolter and Richard Nielsen.

My own great uncle (now deceased) had mapped out the land with dowsing rods of where the ten graves are, where the settlement is, where all the buildings and the ship was located, where each man slept. He's recorded the exact date of birth and death of every man, and he has also done much more on the land at that time. Like what the ocean level was then and such.

But there are many artifacts left by the vikings who were here. We have the Kensington Rune Stone, thousands of mooring stones (used for more purposes than ancoring the ship), more stones in other states, bones in North Dakota with runes carved on them, spear tips, axe heads, ancor rocks, tools, ships, other metal artifacts.

And the Knights Templars is very involved in the story of the Kensington Rune Stone, and Columbus was actually a spie.

And to prove it you can look at his signature.

He has a rune at the beging that he never explained.

It's like an X with a little hook on the upper right corner.

Last Tuesday it was discovered by it's meaning, actually strongly relates to religious purposes.

But anyway, Columbus's uncle was some king in the knights Templars. And Columbus was given maps to the "New World" and knew where he was going. But have you ever wondered why he went down to those caribian islands with those cannibles, where there were little resources and worms that eat his ships?

He knew that the land up here where there is wood, fur, fruitful land, all these resourses, he knew that it had been claimed along time ago.

The Kensington Runestone has many codes within it, and the stone is like a memorial for the 10 dead man, it is a land claim, and has a prayer within it also, also there is a code which tells the name of the carver, and states the year secretly again to avoid the year from being altered. It states it twice.
Jade Sanstead
Posted: Mon May 01, 2006 | 09:15 PM
And also (there is tons of information to better debate it's authenticity but I don't want to type alot) if it were to be a hoax you are saying that a man, with 9 children and a poor farm, with only 38 WEEKS of education, knew extensively of midevil runes, 14th centuary language, 14th centuary history, midevil codes, extensive knowledge about the knights Templars and knowledge of their involvement when nobody else in the world did at that time, and knew runes that had yet to be discovered by anyone, carved the runestone.

There are runes on there that originally "proved" it fake because they didn't exist. Well, in 1935 they found stones in Sweden using these runes. So they were real, and nobody in 1898 knew about them.

He also would have had to find a way to instantly give the stone over 500 years of weathering, and somehow get root leaching on the stone that is caused by tree roots growing across it. And he would have had to place tons of mooring stones all around his land that all point to the location of the runestone.

He would have had to of done even more but I'm not going to type forever.
Eoanthropus Dawsoni
Member
Posted: Tue May 02, 2006 | 07:17 AM
Please read The Kensington Rune Stone: New Light on an Old Riddle, by Theodore Blegen and published by the Minnesota Historical Society. Blegen discusses the anachronistic linguistic problems with the rune engraving and also closely examines some of the characters involved with the stone and debunks the myth that Olaf Ohman was an ignorant farmer incapable perpetrating the hoax. Many people in Douglas County at that time were knowledgeable in runes and at the time of the stone's "discovery" no one in the area regarded as anything other than an amusing joke. In fact, at that time people knowledgeable in runes were even able to identify the probable region in Sweden of the engraving's author based upon the dialect used on the stone. It just so happened that a close friend of Ohman, a highly educated defrocked Lutheran minister turned itinerant school teacher, was from that region in Sweden.

I recommend Blegen's book for anyone interested in the topic. It is a very interesting read.
Eoanthropus Dawsoni
Member
Posted: Tue May 02, 2006 | 07:49 AM
Here is a brief but lucid explanation for the so called "mooring stones" and alleged runes found in North Dakota.
http://www.state.nd.us/ndgs/NDNotes/ndn17_h.htm

As for the "Viking" weapons found in Minnesota and North Dakota, there is also a very simple (but not very exciting) explanation. When the Scandinavian farmers left Norway and Sweden for homesteads in America they brought their tools with them. Occasionally an ax or knife would be misplaced or lost, or simply discarded.
Sandsted
Posted: Mon May 15, 2006 | 07:08 PM
Please, Olaf had 38 weeks of education.

And if people around him could identify that much why didn't he bring it to them? The runic experts in Sweden couldn't correctly identify it and couldn't identify where it was exactly from.

The vikings were from Gotland, they haven't known this that long.

And many runes like the dotted R were supposedly made up by Olaf, but they find 37 years after the runestone was found that these Rs are really common, they are still finding stuff like this in Gotland.

And no, to your "everybody dropping axes and clubs from Sweden" My great grandfather was first to one of the areas in Northern Minnesota in one of the (at that time) unexplored areas of North western Minnesota, and he located two spears tips and an axe head rather close to each other while plowing.

So no, these were not dropped by Norwegians carrying valuable viking artifacts from home.

In 1898 runes were not well known, the experts in Sweden on the subject are laughed at today for their lack of knowledge, for little evidence had been discovered. And Olaf first reported it to be an indian alter rock.

If he had known about runes at all he would know what it was. Maybe not to translate it, but know that they are runes.

Only recent studies have found by the language and runes were it is from.

I'll try to discuss this more later.

But know one in Douglas county was knowligable about runes. I live there today and I can bet you that besides myself if you walked up and ask people about runes, only .7% would be able to tell you anything useful.

And even much more less than that would be able to tell you that they have any other uses besides an alphabet.
Sandsted
Posted: Mon May 15, 2006 | 07:18 PM
mooring stones have been found to have more uses than ancoring a ship. Yes in some cases they may have done this, but more often, there are stones like those at really high altitudes, now when the vikings were here the water was higher, but many of these are even far about that.

What they actually are are land markers.

When you put dots where all the mooring stones were found in the KRS park and you put lines through them they all cross through where the KRS was found.

For they are sort of a treasure map thing. For the KRS was buried, it is a land claim, and to keep it from being altered and taken it was buried. For future generations to come and take the land, they put mooring stones out in plain sight for the future generations to guide themselves to where the runestone was buried. It's quite amazing when you plot all the mooring stones and do this. The Kensington Rune Stone is on a very high hill and they didn't just sail up to this spot, they would have walked a ways.

So no, just because these mooring stones aren't near sea level does not mean they are of no historical value, they could be property lines, or signally the dirrection of something more important.
Eoanthropus Dawsoni
Member
Posted: Sun May 21, 2006 | 02:21 PM
I do not care to waste too much time on a subject which has been proven to be a hoax.

There was a time when I too accepted the Kensington Rune Stone to be a record of early Scandinavian exploration into the heart of North America. However as my knowledge of history deepened, my acceptance of the stone as a legitimate artifact of a Norse presence in Minnesota began to shift towards skepticism.

We do know that there was a brief and unsuccessful attempt at Norse colonization in North America, circa 1000 AD. However that colony failed for two primary reasons: it was at the extreme limit of logistical supply and support; and even though the Norse superb warriors, they were hopelessly outnumbered by a hostile native population. If we accept the stone as legitimate, we must suppose that somehow a team of Norwegians and Swedes managed to show up several hundred years later and several thousand miles away, while leaving no record of their presence during the intervening years.

We now know that the Viking arrival in Greenland coincided with an episode of "Global Warming" which is often referred to as the Medieval Warm Period. The climate one thousand years ago was slightly warmer than today. The conditions were warm enough to provide ice free navigation routes throughout much of the waters in Greenland and northeastern North America, and more important to the occupants of Greenland, the climate was warm enough to develop an agriculture economy. However by the 14th Century that warm period had been replaced by a much cooler climate, what we now refer to as The Little Ice Age. By 1300 the living conditions across much of Europe and North America had become rather grim. Frequent crop failures led to famine, which then lead to a weakened population susceptible to disease. The population and economy of Europe collapsed. It was during this period that the Greenland colony became extinct. Recent archeology suggests that the people gradually starved to death due to climate change which made agriculture impossible and the ice laden and stormy seas cut off navigation to Iceland and Europe.

An expedition of Swedes and Norwegians into the heart of North America would have been the 14th Century equivalent of a Moon Shot. With a supposed date of 1362, such a voyage would have occurred during the darkest of the Dark Ages, when Europeans were doing all they could just to survive. Given the social and economic conditions of the time, the likelihood of an expedition to Minnesota is very remote. When we also consider the navigation impediments brought about by a much colder climate, the plausibility of such a voyage seems very slim.

Now regarding Mr. Ohman and the Stone.

Once again, I urge you to read Blegen's book. Blegen provides strong evidence that Ohman was anything but the dumb farmer as many of the stone's supporters attempt to depict him. Even though the man had little formal education, he was very well read and highly intelligent. He owned numerous books and subscribed to many publications. There is some evidence which indicates that he even possessed books on the topic of Runes. Self taught men were not uncommon in those days and Olaf Ohman was one of them. Blegen also demonstrates that at least one of Ohman's close friends was highly educated and knowledgeable in Runes. And as I have stated before, other people in the area at that time could and did read Runes. Blegen provides ample evidence of that fact.

Educate yourself, READ THE BOOK.
Sandsted
Posted: Sun May 21, 2006 | 07:50 PM
The little ice age wasn't until 1400's,

here I even took a quote

"People keep records of their most important crops, grapes for wine-making being no exception. Ladurie (1971) notes that there were many "bad years" for wine during the LIA in France and surrounding countries due to very late harvests and very wet summers. The cultivation of grapes was extensive throughout the southern portion of England from about 1100-1300. This area is about 300 miles farther north than the areas in France and Germany that grow grapes today. Grapes were also grown in northern France and Germany at that time, areas which even today do not sustain commercial vineyards. At the time of the compilation of the Domesday Survey in the late eleventh century, vineyards were recorded in 46 places in southern England, from East Anglia through to modern-day Somerset. By the time King Henry VIIIth ascended the throne there were 139 sizeable vineyards in England and Wales - 11 of them owned by the Crown, 67 by noble families and 52 by the church (English-wine.com). In fact, Lamb (1995) suggests that during that period the amount of wine produced in England was substantial enough to provide significant economic competition with the producers in France. With the coming cooler climate in the 1400's, temperatures became too cold for grape production and the vineyards in southern England gradually declined."

So no, it has been tested for in 1362 the hight of the level of water would have been about 1440 feet. Where I sit I am at about 1330, but if I travel about half a mile around our lake there is a hill that would have just been above it.

But that is also an interesting topic, artifacts found in Norway show that at around 1200s through the 1300s they were up around almost to the Northest tip of Norway, and then 100 years later they droped until about the southest.

It was a dramatic climate change, kind of ruined a lot of Europe.

But you are wrong in your dates.

Secondly, I've read about the books that Ohman had. He did have books on runes. People saw this but they didn't look at the books. Studied long after his death it shows that they don't talk anything about any of the runes on the runestone.

I study runes myself, I use them for casting and for other divine purposes. But the runes on the Kensington Rune Stone I don't even fully understand, and I've made this a major part of my life for many years now. Many of the runes on the runestone have just very recently been discovered. At 1898 it would have very well looked like a hoax since many of the runes have yet to be unearthed in Gotland and other parts of Sweden and islands off of it like
Sanstead
Posted: Sun May 21, 2006 | 07:52 PM
Anglo-saxon is the second popular one for casting, really I've only seen anglo-fresian used for casting, but it's called anglo-saxon quite freely due to anglo-saxon developed out of anglo-fresian and all it does is adds like 8 or 9 runes to it.

Nobody in 1898 could understand most of the rune stone, much of the language, runes, and history wouldn't be discovered for another 60 or 70 years.

They are still discovering things about it now that nobody knew in the world, until a few months ago.

Like the hooked X (it represents the "a" sound, but it looks sort of like an X) That rune they had questions about ever since it's discovery. Some newspaper clips didn't include it, many newspapers ignored many of the runes on there because they "didn't exist". Like the dotted R, which is used for a code in one instance, and is used also to represent a different pronounciation for the R. Like AraR Ara Aru FithaR. The last word is written incorrectly, but the captital R's are to be pronounced differently.

What that says is, "The eagle's oars are it's feathers (or wings)." This was on a bone found in Sweden, it was found in 1935 and it was the first find using the "hoax" dotted R, nobody knew about the dotted R in 1898. Now they have hundreds of examples of this rune. Gotland is a very good example of this usage.

This is where the language is from. The dialects where Ohman lived is different, now and back in the midevil times.

All of his friends that came and commented on the runestone are from parts of Sweden that aren't in the area of the particular dialect that the Kensington Rune Stone is.

There is tons of history that they are still finding out too. About the Knights Templar, and the Cistertians and all those people. That Ohman would have had to know.

For Ohman to do this I'd say he's the smartest guy in the world because he knew tons of stuff that wouldn't be known by anyone else until about 1960. And he would have had to know stuff that just got discovered a few months ago.

He also would have had to have studied or been a priest in Gotland to know a lot about the grave ritual stuff that's from there.

Gotland by the way is in the southern eastern side of Sweden, it's an island. It was diserted due to raids and stuff along time ago. Ohman is from up in the heart of Sweden.

The vikings that came to Minnesota were from Gotland, the year that is on the stone, 1362, would have been the time when Gotland was on heavy attack, and just awhile after black death had wiped everyone out of there.

Also they are just finding out tons of awesome information about the Templar's knowledge of sacred geometry.

About where their churches are built and how they mark places so things like the KRS can be found by future generations using mooring stones. The churches in Gotland are built in specific spots, their steples make geometric shapes when drawm on maps. And they are just as or more precise than our modern day instraments. They've taken GPS recordings of the churches and stuff and found that they are all within about and inch or less.

One church they found was off by about 20 yards. And they studied it's history and found that it actually burnt and was rebuilt long ago and was rebuilt, in the recordings, 20 yards to the left or something. And they found the old foundation and it was correct.

We are rediscovering knowledge they had 700 years ago.

But the templars and the vikings before that, due to their raiding and vast travels inter mixed with many other cultures. You will notice that some of the words on the KRS are from different languages. And the latin stuff, things like AVM a priest would have been taught from people that were taught from people that had traveled far east, south, west. They used arabic numbering on the KRS. In 1898 they didn't understand this either.
Sanstead
Posted: Sun May 21, 2006 | 07:53 PM
People say that Ohman could have used the Larson notes. But even on those notes they are incorrect. The arabic numbering was used for trade and on calenders. Which there would be no need of zero, it has been found now more documents and artifacts showing that what they thought was zero is ten.

It says on the KRS that they found 10 men red with blood and death. Larrson rune notes say it would be 0 men red with blood and death.

The first translation by the "expert" in sweden said 5 men.

Shows how little was known in 1898 and the early 1900s.

Oh, and there are hundreds, no...more like thousands of viking artifacts found here.

We have axe heads, spear tips, fire steel things, mooring stones, ancor stones, long swords, alter stones, rune stones. They left traces.

Over in Vinland they traded with Native Americans. It is unknown why the sudden attack destroyed the vikings.

Native American tales tell of Native Americans serving as scouts for the vikings that were here.

They had friends here, people often beleived these are the raiding, fierce men that ruled Europe hundreds of years before. But the vikings that came to Vinland and to Minnesota were not raiders, they were explorers, fisherman, farmers.

There's no strong evidence that the 10 men they speak of are even vikings, they could have been their indian friends.

(But my uncle and many other researchers that have come to Minnesota have, through dowsing, confirmed that they were part of the viking party.)

And they didn't even discover Vinland until the 1960s. It's on the KRS.

Did Ohman discover Vinland on his way to Minnesota?

If he knew all of this he could have had a lot better job than a poor farmer. He knew more than the rich runic and language experts in Sweden.

He was a genius to know all this, if you can correctly make a stone as precise as the KRS today you are extreemly gifted. But in 1898 if you knew everything that was on the stone, even with a HUGE percentage of what's on the stone to not be discovered by anyone else until 2006, then I'd say you're the smartest man in the world.
Sandsted
Posted: Thu Jun 01, 2006 | 03:09 PM
There's more than that, but that article is pretty old.
Sandsted
Posted: Thu Jun 01, 2006 | 03:10 PM
How come that "update" at the top doesn't shot up on the rest of the topic?
Sandsted
Posted: Thu Jun 01, 2006 | 03:43 PM
sigh...it deleted my post. I'll write it again.

The "update" is in 2005 not 06

I got Blegen's book, I mean I bought it, haven't gotten it yet.

And to who ever told me about it.

You must note that that book was written in 1968. MUCH more evidence and information has been turned up now.

And Blegen was dieing when he wrote it and so he kind of threw it out there pretty quickly. I don't know if he was dieing at the moment, but he was to the end of his life and died shortly after the book came out.

And Blegen sort of lies sometimes in his book and tries to infer things by changing his words.

I'll give a short example

Blegen wrote something like...

"What matters is the sum total of the historical, runological, and archeological evidence," adding, "The total on the runological and historical side is, in my judgment, conclusive. The inscription is a fake."

You will notice, that he doesn't say on the side of archeological. Because at that time and still today we know that the geology of the stone places it's carving way before Ohman's time.

So he'll do things like that alot to trick you.

Also like

Blegen's (1968: 65) statement, "The modern author of the inscription not only came from the Dalecarlian region, Flow believed, but was an immigrant from somewhere between Orsa (where Ohman originally came from) and Mora in North Helsingland, Sweden" is seriously in error. Ohman came from Forsa in North H
Aramil
Posted: Sun Jul 23, 2006 | 12:47 PM
I've never heard anything about this stone. Can someone describe it a bit more for me?
Kenneth Mackay
Posted: Mon Aug 27, 2007 | 04:37 AM
I don't really care if the stone is a hoax but I would like to track down a book that I read in 1967 (fiction) that was based on the Kensington stone. I can't remember the title or the author. I thought I had found it when I found reference to a book called Immortal Rock the saga of the Kensington Stone by Laura Goodman Salverson. However this is not the book, it is too adult and the story is different to what I remember. Does anyone know of any fiction books based on the Kensingtom stone
Mark Johnson
Posted: Wed Jul 30, 2008 | 05:58 AM
Hi

History tells us that Futhark Runic was last used in the 17th Century by a Swedish Admiral to convey his battle plans because even by then it was so little known he could use it as a secret code.

If you read my report you will be able to read and write Futhark Runic as well as he and his officers did. Something that has not been done since then, over four hundred years ago.

The inscription on the Kensington Runestone is in a ship
oyun oyna
Posted: Wed Sep 16, 2009 | 02:31 PM
You're forgetting about L'Anse-aux-Meadows, where the Vikings settled 500 years before Columbus even thought of getting to N.America. That places them already in North America. Since they don't know what happened to the Vikings there, could it be possible that that was the jumping off point for them to go other places?
Annoymous
Posted: Mon Feb 15, 2010 | 12:11 PM
See "American Heritage" April 1959 Volume 10 Issue 3 for Erik Wahlgren article "The Case of the Kennsington Rune stone"; also follow up article [http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/magazine/ah/1977/5/1977_5_110.shtml American Heritage Postscripts AUgust 1977] 😛
Andrew
Posted: Wed Apr 14, 2010 | 11:12 PM
However, you cannot deny the geological data. It has been successfully proven that the runes are older than 200 years. The erosion of micas has also shown that the stone was in fact under a tree for a few decades. It would be a nice trick if Ohman could carve the stone a few hundred years before he was born while it was under a tree.
Steinar Skailand
Posted: Wed Apr 28, 2010 | 09:28 AM
Se "Top Ten Viking Hoaxes".
4 significant American engraved stones
are delt with. Waki, waki "4000 years are much better than (2010-1362=648)".
E
Posted: Sun Jun 20, 2010 | 03:16 AM
Hello,
I have come across this purely by mistake but I am fascinated by the assumptions made here. First allow me to apologize for any misspelling, English is not my first language. Secondly my history is thus I am an assistant professor at University in Iceland my primary study is Norse culture. I have attended research projects, Archeological digs in Gotland, Fresia, Sweden, Iceland, Faeroe Islands, Norway, Russia and Nova Scotia in the past 25 years. My view point is completely academic..
I would like to address the assumption that the Kensington stone is True or Fraud. The answer is very simple, we in the academic word are not certain. There are many who discount it while others accept it with out question. Neither of these parties are being very scientific. One of the major problems with the Runes used on the stone is that with our current knowledge the runes come from several different eras. Some of the runes were not used after the viking age, (8th - 11th centuries), other runes were still in use in certain areas until the 17th century. This may strike some as odd but in Iceland and the Faeroe Islands runic was used along with Latin alphabet until the mid 18th century when it was outlawed for having heathen ties.
In Iceland we do not doubt that our Norse ancestors made it to America, we readily agree upon this since it is stated in our sagas more than once. Also there are stories from the 14th and 15th centuries of Icelanders fleeing debts and going to find Vinland. Several of them eventually came back to Iceland to free themselves of the debts and told tales of Wild men in Vinland. One of our most famous stories is of an individual whose party made friends with a groups of Skr
Tracy
Posted: Wed Dec 22, 2010 | 09:04 AM
I find the KRS to be interesting. Is it a fake or is it real, I don't know and I'm not sure that anyone can realistically or scientifically say one way or the other. The geological evidence first provided in 1910 and confirmed in the 2000s about the weathering of the rock and the lines of the runes states that the inscription is older than what Olof could have generated. The linguistic evidence for a fraud provided in the early 1900s through Molte in the 1950s has taken serious credibility shots with the recent discoveries of runes in existence in the 1300s that are contained on the KRS by Richard Nielsen. My thought is that anyone who says that the KRS is absolutely real or absolutely fake is not being scientific in their methods. True science requires an open mind and an ability to admit if you are wrong not just agree to disagree. I would find it very interesting to see more research on the KRS in conjuntion with the Heavener, Poteau, Shawnee and other rune stones found in the US and incorporate the triangular mooring holes.

Note: This thread is located in the Old Forum of the Museum of Hoaxes.