- O G Landsverk in 1961 published a book which contained information from interviews with several people regarding the stone. He prepared statements of the interviews from his notes, which were signed by the people involved. Admitted these people were remembering things from 60 years previously, however their recollections seem strong regarding the finding of the stone. First from Landesverk himself:

"The statements were the result of exhaustive questioning with these men in mid-August of this year... Later the statements were prepared from carefully taken notes and mailed to the signators... Each was accompanied by a cover letter which stressed the need for accuracy and invited corrections and/or additions."
"The writer had not met any of these men personally before the interviews in mid-August. But even after brief contact, he is convinced that, without exception, they are honorable men, that they are entirely honest and that the things that they related are the truth to the best of their knowledge."
"The signed originals of these documents, together with the cover letters are on file with the Minnesota Historical Society."

>

> The Statement of Arthur Ohman:

"There are a great many things that I remember clearly about the discovery of the Kensington runestone. Strangely some things that I probably should remember I have forgotten - such for example as the exact number of days after the discovery that the stone and other objects were hauled into our yard - and how many days later it was that the stone was pun ton display in Kenisngton. Of course, none of us at the time expected or dreamed that it would ever become such a controversial issue.Many things that I remember were personal
experiences. There were many other events and facts which were often discussed among members of my family and our neighbors, the Flaten family, and about which there was full agreement among them. This is an account of some of these experiences, events and facts.
One day in the late fall of the year 1898, after my older brother Edward had returned from school, he was sent out to my father with an afternoon lunch. Such lunches were customary when hard work was being done away from the house. We had no thermos bottles to keep coffee hot in those days.
Some time later Edward noticed a large flat rock which had been unearthed. Flat stones are not common in our district. Edward became interested in it and flicked some of the clay off its face with his cap. It was at this point he noticed that there were strange symbols engraved on the stone.
My father called our neighbor, Nils Flaten, at once. Flaten was cutting trees a short distance away across the fence that separates their farms.
It so happens that Flaten had been at this spot previously on this day. My father and Flaten were good friends. They would often visit with each other when they were working in nearby areas.
As a matter of fact, Flaten was visiting my father while he was felling the particular tree which grew directly over the runestone. The roots of the tree gripped the stone so tightly that it was flipped up on its edge as the tree fell.
It was because of this experience that Flaten always used to protest 'But how in the world could Ohman have put the stone under the tree and then make the roots grow so they gripped it so tightly!''
Since Flaten saw this stone being flipped up by the roots of this tree it is not possible that they were later confused with any other stone and tree.
It is reasonable to suppose that if Flaten had observed the exposed under-side of the stone at this time, he and not Edward would have discovered the inscription. It was common knowledge in the Ohman and Flaten families that the under-side of the stone, as it was found, was the inscribed side. But Flaten went back to his own work. He was called back to view the inscription, as was already stated, later in the afternoon of the same day.
I do not remember exactly how many days later it was that my father hauled the stump and the roots to his yard. It was certainly within the following week. The stump was lying by the woodpile during a period of two to four years after this date.
Many of the Ohmans and the Flatens, including myself, were old enough to remember this stump in the fall of 1898 and during the years thereafter. We were unanimous in the opinion that the stump had been severed from the trunk at least 18" above ground level and that the diameter at this height was 8" to 10". In particular, my father and NIls Flaten were experienced woodsmen who could judge the diameter of a tree quite accurately.
The tree had three or four main roots. Two of these had grown across the upper side of the stone in opposite directions. When they reached the edges of the stone, the grew vertically into the ground. these roots grew so tightly that it was turned up on edge when the tree fell. In order to free the stone, my father then had to sever the roots near the base of the stump. This is the reason that the roots were separate from he stump when they reached our yard.
When my father was removing the soil from around the roots, his spade naturally struck the stone at many points. he did not cut off the roots against the stone. This might have ruined his axe. Instead, he dug deeper and cut off the roots below the lower edge of the stone.
This is the reason that the roots still gripped the stone so tightly. Later as was stated above, the roots had to be severed near the base of the stump in order to free the stone.
These things I have told exactly as they were agreed on by my father, my brother Edward, and Nils Flaten.
One of my older brothers, Olof, used to be able to draw a section of the stone, the stump, and the roots just as we all agreed that they had been. Edward had preserved such a sketch. When he died the sketch was passed on to my younger brother, William. When he lived some miles north of Bemidji some years ago his house burned and this sketch was lost.
I studied the sketch on several occasions, and recall the details of it quite well. The sketch which I have signed and which is reproduced with this statement is as accurate a copy as I could make.
I do not remember personally the time of year that the stone was discovered. But this was certainly some time in November. This was always the time that was given by the Ohman and Flaten families, no doubt largely on the authority of the adults, my father and mother, and Nils Flaten and his wife. The November date was also common knowledge in the Kensington community.
I am completely certain that no one in the Ohman or Flaten families could have, desired to, or actually did have any part in the forgery. My father was absolutely hones. Everyone in the community knew and acknowledged this. He was not a man for practical jokes, hoaxing or scheming. Furthermore, how could he possibly have covered up such a hoax with his own family and friends even if he had wished to do so?
My father could not have possibly carved the inscription. He wa not ever more than a fair stonemason. He did not even own stonemason's chisels until considerably after 1898.
I recall a comical incident in this connection. A Chicago University professor asked my father for a copy of the inscription. I do not recall the professor's name or the year. Some time later the professor wrote that he had lost it and asked for a second copy. But the professor had not lost the first copy at all. After he compared the two copies he made this statement:
'This man could not possibly have carved the inscription. He made too many mistakes!'
The hill on which the runestone wa discovered was never called an island by the local people. It has not been surrounded by water since the earliest settler arrived. It was certainly not called an island by my family or the Flatens. Our farms surround this hill. No one else has any reason to call it anything.

Arthur Ohman Sept 26, 1961"

The sketch by Arthur Ohman appears in Landsverk's book.

The statement of Olaus and John Flaten:

"This is a joint statement by myself, Olaus Flaten, and my brother John. Whenever the pronoun 'I" is used, the statement is mine only. When 'we' is used, this signifies that we moth agree on the matter.
John was born in 1894. My year of birth was 1891. I was approaching the age of eight years in the fall of 1898 when the runestone was unearthed.
There are many things about the discovery that I remember clearly. John was less than five years of age in 1898. But he recalls rather better than most of us the things that were accepted as factual about the discovery by the Ohmans and by my family. The controversy which arose naturally lead to frequent and intense discussion among us. This severed to fasten in our memories many details which would otherwise have been forgotten.
We both lived with our father, Nils Flaten, on the farm until 1916. The member so the Ohman family were good neighbors and nice friends. We visited back and forth very often.
Mr. Ohman himself was an honest as well as a sensible man. No one in the Kensington community ever accused him of being a forger. It was not in his character to commit a hoax. We are certain that he never studied runes or knew anything about runes either before or after the stone was discovered. When Professor Breda published his very erroneous and misleading translation, Ohman made no objections and made no suggestions that it was incorrect.
Ohman was not a stonemason. We never saw him do that kind of work. He did not even own a stonemason's chisels until after the year 1898. Our father likewise had no skill as a stonemason. He never owned stonemason's chisels. He or Ohman could not possibly have carved the inscription.
Ohman was clearing land for cultivation oh his hilllside that slopes down to the Ohman-Flaten line fence when the stone was discoverd. He was removing all the trees from this area. The tree that grew over the stone was brought down in its natural turn. He did not cut the tree from the stump. Instead he uncovered the main roots and cut them off. The he pulled the tree down with a winch, stump roots and all.
Our father was also grubbing a short distance away on his side of the fence. When the inscription had been noticed by Edward, Ohman called him over to view it. I recall that when he came home from work he told mother 'Ohman found a stone with an inscription on it.'
Neither he nor Ohman had any idea the symbols were runes. But our father never doubted that, whatever it might be, it was genuine. He never suspected in the least that Ohman had any part in a forgery.
Our father said that the roots of the tree had grown very tightly around the stone. He often stated that the diameter of the trunk of the tree, where it was cut away from t he stump, was at least eight inches. Both he and Ohman were expert woodsment who could judge the diameter of a tree accurately.
We never heard the tree was stunted. But the fact was often brought up that the tree had grown slowly. This was because of its unfavorable location in the clay soil of a steep hillside.
I remember seeing the stone on display in Ohman's yard. This was a very few days after the discovery. My best guess is that it was two days later. About two weeks later the stone was brought to Kensington.
I have seen the mooring stone which is located downhill from the runestone site. This is on our fathers land and only a few yards below the Ohman-Flaten line fence. Our father was the original settler on his land. I am certain that he did not drill the hole. I do not believe that he ever drilled a hole in a rock in his life.
The 'runestone hill' never was called an island by the Ohmans or our family or by neighbors. Nor was it called an island by the earliest settlers. The hill has never been surrounded by water since 1870.
Olaus Flaten, John Flaten, Oct 21, 1961"

I have not done any real study of the 'mooring stones' issue, but if Olaus is correct, the mooring stone nearest to the KRS would have been carved prior to any settling of the land (possibly by the same hand as did the stone??)

The statement of Henry Moen:
"The families of my father, Hans O. Moen and of Olof Ohman were very close friends. We had know the Ohman family since 1892. In 1898, the year that the runestone was discovered, my father had a shoe store in Kensington and was working at his trade of making boots and shoes.
My father, although he had no formal training in law, helped Ohman with some of his legal problems. My mother also helped Mrs, Ohman at the birth of several of her children. The families often visited back and forth. We knew the Ohman family very well.
One day late in the fall of 1898, Mr. Ohman called on my father in his store. I happened to be there. Ohman said that yesterday he had uncovered a large flat stone which had strange characters on it. I recall very distinctly that Ohman gave the time of discovery as the day before this visit. Ohman asked my father to come out and inspect the stone. My father had an active mind and a good deal of curiosity. He had his horse and buggy hitched up and drove out there. I was almost nine years old at the time and was permitted to go along.
When we arrived, the stone and the stump of the tree that hd grown over it were on display in Ohman's yard. The greater part of the roots which held the stone had been cut off close to the stump and were now separate form the stump.
Ohman had cut the roots from t he stump. This had been done to free the stones from the roots. The roots had the shape of a right angle. The were flattened on the inside of the angel. They had this shape because the roots had grown tightly against the top surface and around the two opposite edge of the stone. I recall the stump was lying in Ohman's yard at least one year after this time.
When my father and I arrived a the Ohman farm, Roald Benson was also there. There may have been others present besides the Ohmans but I do not clearly recall this.
After we had viewed these objects, my father and I got into a lumber wagon with Mr. Ohman and one of his sons. We drove across Ohman's farm to view the hole from which the stone had been removed. It was located on Ohman's land near the southeast corner of his farm. The spot was on a hill in plain vie of the Nils Flaten house about a quarter mile away. A short distance below the site ran the Ohman-Flaten line fence in a north-south direction. A marsh lay between the fence and the Flaten buildings.
I remember this ride very well for two reasons. A large black horse which was one of the team that pulled the wagon, interested me a great deal. Also, I recall that the weather was so cold that I was freezing. This indicates that the time must have been late fall.
My father thought that this must be an Indian monument of some kind. He suggested that the site of the discovery should be excavated in a search for related objects. This was actually done by a group of men after the ground had thawed the following spring. No objects were found so far as I know.
The information that the inscription was Gothic runes came from outside the Kensington area. This must have been quite a while after the discovery but I do not remember when or where the information came from.
The hill on which the stone was found was never called an island by anyone around Kensington, nor has it ever been surrounded by water since the first settlers arrived.
The stone was brought to Kensington for display. I do not remember exactly how long this was after the discovery but it must have been about two weeks.
The stump was cut off about 18" above ground level. I seem to recall that the stump was about 7" in diameter where it was cut off. But this is quite vague to me and I have little training in judging the diameter of trees.
One fact I believe is of importance in this connection - the tree was growing in clay soil on a fairly steep hillside. This would cause the tree to grow slowly and to be affected by periods of drought. The tree was probably older than normal for its diameter.
Some professors and staff writers have accused Ohman of carving the inscription. Nothing could be more untrue. His word was as good as his bond. This has never been questioned in the vicinity whre he lived.
It could be said that Ohman never attended church services. But he knew more about the Bible and its contents than most people who do go to church regularly. Writers who accuse a man of Ohman's character and standing in the community of committing a hoax and of being a schemer and forger simply do not know what they are talking about.
Henry Moen, Sept 26, 1961"

> The statement of Arthur Osterberg
"I was born in 1882 and am therefore about 79 years of age. This community has been my home except for a few years elsewhere. I lived here in 1898, the year that the Kensington runestone was found, and the years following.
Olof Ohman hauled his stone into his yard on a stone boat. His neighbor, Nils Flaten, helped him load it. Thaw was common knowledge in this community at the time so I heard it from several sources. I do not know the exact number of days after the discovery that this happened but it was certainly less than two weeks.
Naturally quite a number of people viewed the runestone and also the stump and the roots of the tree that grew over the stone, while it was on display in Ohman's yard. But I cannot name such persons. However, my brother-in-law, William Sersland, told me that he was a member of a 16 man threshing crew at the Ohman farm and that they had inspected and discussed these objects.
The stone was on display about two months here in Kensington. Naturally many people inspected it here and speculated on what the symbols might be. I recall parts of its surface were still caked with clay. People would brush the dirt away in order to try and make out the symbols.
Arhur Osterberg, Sept 20, 1961."