Kensington Runestone Geology Accusations

I found this quite helpful, Harold Edwards 2020 'The Kensington Runestone: Geological Evidence of a Hoax' The Minnesota Archaeologist https://academia.edu/45218145/The_Kensington_Runestone_Geological_Evidence_of_a_Hoax but ex-TV presenter Scott Wolter ( @RealScottWolter · 6h) reckons "

Edwards is a complete fraud and a failed academic. I hired him out of sympathy 25 yrs ago. My partners and I had to walk him out of the building for incompetence and insubordination. His KRS work is garbage or it’d be published in a geological journal not archaeology".

What? So what is the underlying geology of the findspot and the area 1 km or so around? What is "wrong" (or "fraudulent") with his geological reasoning here? It looks pretty plausible to me the systematic and evidence-based way it is presented here. Why would you publish specialist analysis of an archaeological artefact (if that's what this is) tucked away in some geological journal where it would not be seen by archaeologists just because it is a "stone"? I asked if this text is 'wrong', was a critical review of this article ever published, in a geological journal maybe? Scott Wolter (@RealScottWolter · 40m) replies scathingly and illogically:

It’s not worthy of critical review, it is that bad. And people in our community know exactly what’s going on with Harold. He filed complaints against me in 38 states that we filmed episodes of America Unearthed. That’s how obsessed with hatred he is..

.This is rather odd, I asked about a petrography report on a stone, Woltter seems to identify himself with that stone... He continues ( Scott Wolter @RealScottWolter)

Because it doesn’t make sense. He He knows it’s intentional deception that’s why it’s published in archaeological term, not the geological one. It wouldn’t have been accepted.

Whoah. This is getting wild. My reply:

I've read it and dont see why you claim it "makes no sense", it presents the case and the evidence very carefully, &leads to the conclusion in a perfectly logical manner. What specifically needs to be change to "make it make sense"? Are you saying evidence is "falsified" or what?