1.There are no other rune stones in Europe that are like it.
2. There are no other messages like it on rune stones in Europe.
3. It's possible that relatives of Edward Larsson could have carved the inscription as they immigrated from the Dalcarlian region of Northern Sweden which has runes similar to the Kensington Rune Stone alphabet.
4. He believed it was likely the carver was inspired by the Chicago World's Fair "Vikings" Expedition of 1893.
To say this is weak evidence to support his opinion would be an understatement. First, that there are no other rune stones like it is not evidence to support a modern origin. Further, the same is true about his second reason. The Kensington inscription and manuscript style of the message absolutely are unique and therefore, all the more rare and important. To try to use these claims as evidence of forgery certainly isn't a scientific way of thinking at all and reeks of an agenda. You'd think a one-of-a-kind medieval runic text would present an exciting opportunity to learn which a more clear thinking scholar would jump at.
Even a quick scan at the comparative table below that lists the Kensington and Dalacarlian runes proves Williams' third reason is sheer fantasy and begs the question why he would say something that he already knows isn't true?
Lastly, speculating that the 1893 World's Fair Exhibition somehow inspired a forger is really scraping the bottom of the barrel. It also begs the question, why would somebody inspired by a "Viking" exhibition carve a stone with medieval runes instead of Viking Age runes?
None of the reasons listed meet the bar as factual evidence against the stone, so why does Williams continue to say the Kensington Stone is probably a hoax when he knows it's 100% authentic? This raises other questions as well. Why does Williams continue to marginalize and ignore the geological weathering work myself and Newton H. Winchell performed on the artifact, work he is not qualified to comment on yet still does, that proved the Kensington Rune Stone is a medieval artifact? Why does he continue to ignore the voluminous examples of the Hooked X, something he says is modern, in Icelandic manuscripts dating back several hundred years? And why would he continue to ask for donations to pay for him to come to the United States and talk about all the "fake" rune stones we supposedly have here? Does he really think we're that dumb? Apparently so.
The truth of the matter with the KRS inscription is it's a Templar/Masonic document that has nothing at all to do with the tradition of rune stones in Scandinavia. Until Williams and the rest of the runologists stop trying to frame the discussion by trying to tell the KRS what it should be, instead of letting it tell them what it is, they have no chance of figuring it out.
I will give him credit for one thing. That he hasn't completely closed the door on the authenticity is very telling. After having worked with him for 5 years I know that he knows it's real, and by leaving open the possibility it could be genuine gives him plausible deniability should new evidence comes forward that even he can no longer explain away. That new evidence is coming soon. Until it does, it's time for the History Center and the American Swedish Institute to wake up and hold this guy, and his personal representative, Loraine Jensen, accountable for their words and actions. For those who missed it, I would ask you to read my February, 2016, blog posting where I detail the academic fraud Professor Williams, and the late Richard Nielsen, committed with the Kensington Rune Stone inscription. It's a pretty good read and generated lots of discussion. What do you think about all of this?
On page 91 of my book, "The Kensington Rune Stone: Compelling New Evidence", a table created by my now deceased co-author, Richard Nielsen, and peer reviewed by Professor Henrik Williams, has caption that says, "...the Kensington Rune Stone alphabet did not originate in Dalacarlia."