Finding Minnesota: Alexandria's Kensington Runestone Stands Out As Minnesota's Mystery

In this week's Finding Minnesota, John Lauritsen visited the Kensington Runestone in Alexandria, and learned about a new test that could shed light on an age-old debate, (3:26).
WCCO 4 News at 10 - March 1, 2020

[@voltron6953]

Anyone know anything on the minnesota woman remains that was found during a highway construction in 1931?

[@bubaks2]

What does it say about the community?

[@bengoodell723]

Hi hi

[@NitroReviewsMN]

Soon to be proven the real deal. Just wait!

[@Mjll]

It has been proved to be a fake.
th-cam.com/video/aWvRtlyTaUc/w-d-xo.html
This video is by an expert in the old norse language and myth and he goes over exactly what makes it fake. It's a great video

[@alexs5744]

It’s a fake.

[@Smokin_Phat_Dabs]

​@@Mjll Only according to your tiny smooth brain. 😂 Its real and heres why, the date 1362 is on the stone twice, one clear as day as for the other, its written in code. This wasn't discovered until after Olof's death in 1935, not unless if Olof knew Magic and can make changes from beyond the grave...its real.

[@Smokin_Phat_Dabs]

Its real and heres why, its dated twice 1362. One clear as day as for the other date, its written in code. This was not discovered until after Olof's death in 1935 and the only way this could of been done if Olof knew magic and made changes from beyond the grave, its 100% real.

[@kniter]

its a hoax, unfortunately

[@Smokin_Phat_Dabs]

Only according to your smooth brain kniter.

[@kniter]

@@Smokin_Phat_Dabs and according to scholars. It's pretty obvious its not a 14th c. stone when its written in 1800's peasent swedish.

[@Smokin_Phat_Dabs]

@@kniter LOL!!! LIVING PROOF OF HOW DUMB YOU ARE LOL!!! 🤣 The little you know kniter, the date 1362 is carved on the stone twice, one clear as day 1362 as for the other is written in code. This was not discovered until AFTER Olof's death in 1935, now. Unless if Olof knew magic and can make changes from beyond the grave it's 100% real. Oh, and by the way, it isn't "Viking" either.

[@Smokin_Phat_Dabs]

​@@kniter Well, what proof you have kniter? Noticed you've gone all quiet all of a sudden.

[@kniter]

@@Smokin_Phat_Dabs my proof is in the pudding. Forms like "Vi var", which is attested on the kensington stone, would not exist during the 14th c. it would only exist in 1800's scandinavian peasent speech. The correct form should be "vi varom". You can check out Jackson Crawford, a scholar on Norse language if you wanna see more evidence of its forgery.