Thanks for the link - I'll make a note of it.<quoted text>For what, the runestone
Here's something that makes it simple - the faker signed it, and attempted to disguise his signature with a cryptogram.
Öh mans fan vi ved hade ved sten, or in English,The Öhmans found. We kept/collected firewood at the stone.
this is not strictly a case of forgery, but of a practical joke gone wrong through the gullibility of others. Öhman himself may have been both surprised and a little disappointed to find that his hints about who made the inscription were never noted, and as time passed it became successively more difficult for him to confess. After his rune stone gained acceptance in wider circles through skilful marketing by others, it became almost impossible for him to come clean with his honour intact."
Larsson, M.G.. 2010. Vem ristade Kensingtonrunstenen? Saga och sed 2010. Uppsala.
If you want something else, like sources that explain why the language is all wrong and other problems, I'll be happy to provide them, but I think this is quite definitive.
To add to your post - this link also states the runestone could also be a hoax - but it has nothing to do with your "numbers" explanation, but relative to actual history out of Norway/Sweden.
Thanks again for the link.
Just because one artifact is dismissed as true, it doesn't mean that the efforts Wolter is doing is only "chasing rabbits down holes", as you would like to imply.
I guess the Narragansett Rune Stone isn't in this category yet - until the origin facts are discovered about this stone, huh?
Just to state, and in defense of Wolter - IMO Wolter has not mentioned or actually stated that this history is true, but is out to try and prove it to be.
It seems you are jumping the gun with implying I believe all that he is doing is all factual. I don't and am have skepticism in many aspects with these discoveries.
- are they researched enough by scholars to deem "untrue"
- are there plausible scenarios that can depict a find as true. What are the objections?
- Can an artifact be hoaxed? As we have seen throughout time, many people try to hoax different things. We've seen it with the "James Ossuary", "Bigfoot", as well as "The Shroud of Turin" and other "historical" items.
BTW - either you or DS asked me for a sign of skeptism.....here you go....
Animal mutations disprove "God".