These heated discussions were going on forever and ever...
This here is the Kensington Rune Stone
articles by Yuri Kuchinsky posted and discussed in sci.archaeology
All these Usenet discussions have made it quite clear that no good arguments against the authenticity of KRS exist.
These are only some of the articles I wrote about that famous Kensington Rune Stone that was found by Farmer Ohman about 100 years ago as he was clearing the field for planting. This mystery in rural Minnesota has puzzled the world ever since. Many more articles on this subject, hundreds of them in fact, are available in DejaNews. For some reason, this discussion always evokes strong emotions among various posters. And of course, if you do a WWW search on "Kensington Rune Stone", you will find great many webpages of all sorts dedicated to it.
The latest articles from summer of '98 are added at the end.
In these 2 articles (combined) I bring up some technical details about the use of umlauted runes in the KRS. Yes, many of these discussions went into some highly technical areas dealing with medieval runes in general. All the objections of our critics were answered in detail. Conclusion: KRS is the real thing.
I'm aware of course that, at this time, the general concensus on this subject among historians is negative to the KRS. But this should not prevent critical scholars from looking into the evidence and deciding for themselves. One of my goals in writing these articles was to demonstrate how this vaunted "scientific consensus" around the KRS was formed. In my opinion, this consensus was really based on inertia, laziness, plain academic sloppiness, brazen ignorance, willful distortion by some, and the willingness of the horde of the uninformed to follow certain academic misleaders, not to say con-artists. This consensus is really not worth the paper on which it is typed.
Here are the latest additions to this subject from summer of '98.