So, what did all that long posting mean, in the greater sphere of things...

1) It puts the finding of the runestone into a context, rather than a sequence of facts. It shows, at least a bit, what people were thinking, what kind of interest it drew, sets the discovery of the stone into a managable form, something that we can get our hands on.
2) Verifies the affidavits (except the distance to Flattens house, and the date of discovery)
3) Fixes the date to November.
4) Sets a particular sequence of events regarding the stone, from the point of the cutting of the tree to the point it was sent to Curme, some two months later.
5) Sets the time that Roald Bentson (or Benson), whose affidavit it posted earlier in this line, saw the stone - ie within the first few days after its discovery.
6) Runestone hill was never called an island by the locals
7) Gives evidence that a carved stone (the so called mooring stone) was also at the site prior to the settlement of the area. (Was the carver of the 'mooring stone' the same person who inscribed the KRS?)
8) The roots of the tree were cut off beneath the stone, so the stump could be pulled up. The stone was grasped so tightly by the roots, that the roots also had to be cut off above the stone in order to free it.
9) The site was indeed in full view of Nils Flattens house.
10) The stone was found in clayey soil on the steep side of a hill, not condusive to proper growth. The tree may have been older than a normal tree of that size.
11) Olaf Ohman did not have the tools nor the stonecutting skill to inscribe the stone
12) Olaf Ohman was a respected and honorable man, not given to playing 'practical jokes', a man "whose word was good as his bond' - in short, not a man of such character to attempt a hoax.

It is on this last point that I will focus my next few posts - it would be quite impossible to commit a planned hoax of this nature without the cooperation of Mr. Ohman (I do leave open the possibility of a stone innocently carved and just left on the spot, or of an attempted hoax prior to the time that Ohman came to the land). Several people have tried to cast aspersions on Ohman, taking a few phrases and blowing them out to try and paint a dark portrait of the man. However, I hope to show by the testimonies given in the documentary source of the time, that Ohman was in no way of the character to perpetrate such a fraud.