Conclusions of Fact
1. There were multiple witnesses who saw the rune stone, tangled in tree roots, when it was discovered.
2. The age of the tree was estimated to be 25-30 years, and the stone had been in the roots since the tree was new. That time period alone pushed the latest date of carving back to before there were any settlers in this part of Minnesota.
3. Olof did not have runic knowledge. The claim that he had books with runes is false, he did not obtain those books until after the stone was found, in an effort to understand it.
4. The world’s top scholars of the day did not know of many of the runes, proclaiming them “made up,” even though they were later proven to be genuine. There is no way Olof Ohman could have known this.
5. There is extensive root leaching on the back of the stone that fits the description given by observers of how the roots were wrapped around the stone.
6. The KRS is about 31 x 16 inches and 6 inches thick. it weights about 200 lb. It is greywacke which is a very hard stone that would have been difficult to carve.
7. The stone was cut down from a larger stone before carving, and expertly done. The so-called split side is equally aged as the carvings.
8. Over the years, all runes on the KRS have been found elsewhere from a similar date period. None of the runes can be said to be made-up or too recent and indicative of a modern forger. Most of these were found in the runic practice of Gotland, lending further credence to the possibility that the carver was of the Cistercian order.
9. The stone is double dated to 1362 using the Easter Table Code which is further evidence still of a Gotlandic connection.
The three categories of fact above are historical, physical and linguistic. It should be noted that “photographic” is not one of them. While photographs can be weighed as evidence, they can never rise to a conclusive level. The only possible conclusion of fact regarding KRS photographs is that they have, over the years, shown many distortions both accidental and intentional, and are therefore always suspect. We have the stone. Old photos are not necessary to clarify reality.
1. Olof Ohman could not have carved the stone. Multiples runes were unknown to the world's runic scholars at the time of discovery, but were later proven to have been in use in 1362. Such runes could not have been known to Olof. Plus, all evidence indicates that he did not have the inclination or the character for such a hoax.
2. There is no reasonable candidate between 1362, and the time the stone would have been in tree roots which was about 30 years before discovery. Geological evidence pushes the carving date to before 1700, at which time there were no known people in the area except for native Americans.
3. It is reasonable to conclude that the KRS was carved in 1362 as it says, and that the rest of the inscription should be taken at face value.
4. There is no reason to assume that this was the only party to have visited the area, or that this is the only rune stone left behind. Its immediate timing and location may have been prompted by the finding of the ten dead men, but its purpose appears to be more to mark a location, perhaps as part of a land claim.
5. The stone holes in the area constitute a finding grid and that is not an accident. The logical conclusion is that the KRS party expected a follow-up party to come in the future and find the stone.
6. Many of the runes trace back to Gotland and may indicate Cistercian practices. One or more Cistercian monks was likely with the party, and indeed, the Cistercians may have been very much involved with the long-term plans of the people the KRS party represented. Who those people were is unclear, but there are unmistakable Templar and Masonic indications.
7. There are likely connections between the KRS and the Newport Tower, as well as the Spirit Pond Stones and other sites. The multiple examples of Nordic explorers in America from the 12th to 14th century indicates connections between them rather than isolated and disconnected journeys.
In closing, we ask the reader to pause and reflect on what he must believe in order to believe that the Kensington Rune Stone is a forgery carved by Olof Ohman. Set aside, for the moment, the theories and speculations about who might have carved the stone and why. Begin instead, by deciding whether the hoax option is still open to you, or whether you can eliminate it as illogical.
Because if you can eliminate it, you have just arrived at a shocking understanding. One that shakes the foundations of all you have known about America's early history. If you allow your mind to go there, you'll find yourself wanting to learn more and more about this forgotten, ignored or covered-up story of the country's past. But if you've read this far, you're already there.
So what “do” you have to believe in order to believe it was a hoax?
That Olof Ohman, struggling farmer with a large family, had time to cut the rune stone from a larger stone, learn the runes, carve the stone, and pretend to find it.
That those who say they saw it tangled in the tree roots, were lying. And that the root leaching is fake.
That Olof wouldn't have picked a smaller and easier to carve stone!
That Olof would carve the stone, but then for some odd reason, scratch out all the runes with a nail.
That Olof could have known about runes, and used them correctly, that were not known to exist until 35 years later.
That Olof would have thought up such a strange, enigmatic inscription.
That the Geologic studies, from Winchell to Wolter, are somehow bogus and the carved area does not show extreme aging.
Note that doubting any one of these is enough to logically rule out the hoax theory, and once you do that it is a slippery slope to 1362. And yet, the majority by far of archeologists and historians accept on faith that the rune stone is a hoax. Now you know more than they do!
Important - No photos on this site may be reproduced or used elsewhere without permission from the owner.