When asked to provide cites, the implied assumption is always that current scientists using current evidence and techniques will be used. The question is never “has any scientist in history said X” but always “do scientists today say X.”
Which five geologists? Several of the people you cited are chemists, not geologists, and others could hardly be described as eminent. And I don’t see any modern peer-reviewed publications cited.
Winchell and Hotchkiss’s opinions from more than a century ago are of negligible value today. Sorensen, the Smithsonian geologist, says that even now the technology doesn’t exist to draw the conclusions that they made.
Wolter is a bit of an odd case, true. He does have some fringe beliefs. It’s also true he hasn’t published his paper yet. But you know of many eminent scientists who have delayed their papers for decades, right? It’s not uncommon. And you also know of eminent scientists who are experts in one field but get fringie outside of it. Dr Pauling for example.
However, I also quoted: Professor Newton Horace Winchell , Dr. Warren Upham, Professor W. O. Hotchkiss, Professor emeritus Paul Weiblen & Prof. Dick Ojakangas.
These are/were all highly respected professional hard scientists, none of which are in the bit “fringie” .
All the "abundant other evidence that stone is a hoax" are various linguists, none of whom agree on what part makes it a hoax, and there are almost as many linguists who say it’s authentic.
The only thing that stops it from being the discovery of a century is it’s location, which I admit is problematic.
But do note, something the "hoaxers’ could not know was that a expedition was ordered by the King at exactlly the right time to check on Greenland, Vinland etc, and nothing is known of what happened to it.
(It’s possible it never left, true). But it’s very interesting that period documents show such an expedition was ordered, and nothing shows what happened to that expedition. This is the only thing that to me makes the KRS more likely true.
There’s also the fact that it bears no hallmarks of a fraud. Ohlman would have had to carve it, then bury it for at least 20 years, then dig it up. Hoaxsters just don’t do that. The guys that did the Cardiff giant barely waited a year, and then tried to get rich off it.
So name a current geologist using *current evidence and techniques *that has said the KRS is a hoax.
You still “moved the goalposts”.
Professor Newton Horace Winchell , Dr. Warren Upham, Professor W. O. Hotchkiss, Professor emeritus Paul Weiblen & Prof. Dick Ojakangas.
Not quite: “I don’t think the technology is there yet to be able to differentiate 19th century from 14th century artefacts based solely on weathering rates.”
There’s more than just weathering rates. They had the opportunity to examine the stone more in situ, see where it was dug up, and examine other aspects like tree root patterns and what not.
As I said, Winchell and Hotchkiss’s opinions were given more than a century ago and are of negligible value today. I see no statement of Upham’s opinion on the stone, merely the mention of his name. You mentioned Ojakangas, but I don’t see where you quoted or cited him. Weiblen’s report is not peer-reviewed, nor do the results seem to have been published in any peer-reviewed publication.
In short, you got zip in terms of modern peer-reviewed publications.
Wolter isn’t just delaying publishing, he’s stated on camera that he is not interested in the scientific approach, that there’s nothing wrong with having close associates do all your peer review and then refuse to show the work except as thick folders that could be anything, and that his future plans regarding the Kensington stone is to focus on publicity. He’s not only fringe outside his field, he’s fringe inside it.
And your harping on about linguistics being a soft science is disingenuous as well. The language on the stone resembles modern Swedish and how a non-scholar would think 14th century Scandinavian should look like. Yes, in a lot of cases you can find the spelling or word choice from the stone in some manuscript or other, but different manuscripts for each spelling and choice of word. It boggles the mind how unlikely it is that 14th century Scandinavians should happen to only choose words and spellings that fits with a 19th century Scandinavian’s knowledge of “ye Olde language”.
The runes don’t match known 14th century runes, but, as actual 19th century documents discovered in recent years show, they do match 19th century runes used by Swedes living in an area with documented emigration to the area where the stone was found.
There’s ample evidence the stone was carved in the 19th century. There’s no evidence it was carved in the 14th.
How about you start by showing the existence of geology based techniques available today for dating inscriptions.
And then explain why someone should bother going to the effort of using those techniques to disprove a theory that’s only held by a harmless fringe.
And are there any modern peer-reviewed publications by geologists that say the KRS is a hoax?
I wonder how long it will take until someone mentions the Maine Penny… 
Scientists have better things to do than writing articles on obvious hoaxes.
Exactly. Real academic geologists aren’t going to find that doing a study of the stone is worth their research time, considering the strong consensus that it is a hoax. Oddly, there is also a remarkable paucity of reputable academic biologists who have produced peer reviewed publications on the Loch Ness Monster.
You seem to really, really, want the stone to be authentic. I agree that the world would be a much more interesting place if it were, but if we’re scientists, we really need to try and make sure we aren’t finding what we want to find.
Anyway, I think you’re putting the burden of proof on the wrong side. It is an extraordinary thing if this stone is not a forgery, given what we do know about Viking movements. And extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, not just the absence of evidence disproving them.
The overwhelming opinion of linguists is that the inscription is a 19th century creation; the overwhelming opinion of historians in that Vikings didn’t make it 1,500 miles inland; and no modern geologist or chemist has published a technical paper showing that the carving can reliably be shown to be older than the 19th century. That’s way more evidence than the qualitative opinions of a couple professors from 100 years ago.
Again, it would be fun if Vikings really did roam the entire North American continent, only to discover that attempting to settle Seattle before the availability of coffee was doomed to failure. But that’s not what we see. And I think it’s actually more fun to live in a world that we really can understand.
Well, we certainly know it isn’t Viking, nor is it claimed to be. So, “given what we do know about Viking movements” can’t have much effect on the stones authenticity. In 1354, King Magnus of Sweden and Norway (no longer “Vikings”) ordered an expedition to Greenland and perhaps further to Vinland. Thus, the KRS matches to what could have happened to this expedition if it had continued West.
No, it’s NOT the overwhelming opinion of linguists . Majority, maybe, but it’s been argued back and forth.
Indeed, and 50 years ago, the overwhelming opinion of historians in that Vikings didn’t settle in America, either.
True, but why should they? More than a ‘couple” of extremely eminent geologists said it wasn’t carved recently. They had the chance to examine it for years, and the site where it was dug up, and before it had been cleaned and ‘restored”. Why should any other geologist write a technical paper simply to concur? Even Wolter only does so as he is showing a new technique he invented.
But there would be fame in proving it’s a hoax, and in fact many books have been written each way. So, why doesn’t a modern geologist simply prove it’s a hoax? Heck, even the two geologist cited by Colibri say “"The geologic studies “are certainly interesting and add to the complete picture, but there isn’t a lot of proof yet,” says William Fitzhugh, curator of the Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History’s arctic collections. Smithsonian geologist Sorena Sorensen also remains unconvinced. “Resolving ages a few hundred years apart is very difficult,” she says. “I don’t think the technology is there yet to be able to differentiate 19th century from 14th century artefacts based solely on weathering rates.”
In other words, they are being conservative and since they have not had the chance to personally examine it, won’t say one way or the other. As opposed to the five eminent geologists that had the chance to examine the stone for years, the site, etc.
It doesn’t match anything we know about any post-Viking movements by Scandinavians either. Or for that matter by Europeans in general until the 1500s.
You’ve got to be kidding. By this logic, if it had been found in California it would also match where an expedition to Greenland might have ended up. The stone’s location doesn’t make any sense regardless of who was doing the exploring during that time period. It’s away from any major navigable watercourses.
Sorry, it is.
You really don’t understand science, do you? The same reason there have been few modern anatomical studies on the Feejee Mermaid. No one cares to waste their time on it compared to other things they could be doing that would actually bring them some stature in the scientific community. Disproving a hoax would get publicity among the general public, but wouldn’t be worth much among their scientific peers compared to making some theoretical advances.
You know, you don’t help your cause by repeatedly misrepresenting and exaggerating the evidence for it. The opinions of the three geologists who examined the stone 100 years ago are worth about as much as their opinions on plate tectonics. As for Weiblen and Okajungas, you do know that “emeritus” is not the same as “eminent,” don’t you? :dubious: