If you think that "The Kensington Runestone: Approaching A Research Question Holistically", with its chapters on geology, archaeology, linguistics, and biology is "an exciting book about an epic adventure"... either you've never read the book, or you've already decided what you want to be true. Apparently, you don't even know what conclusion Kehoe comes to. Either way, you've pretty clearly invalidated your qualifications to comment.
Look, the stone includes runes that appeared in no dictionary at the time, and this was taken as contemporary proof that it was a bad fake. Those runes were later found to be genuine by further research. How do you explain the presence of genuine runes unknown at the time if its a forgery? And why do you find the fabricated-after-the-fact, unsupported by any evidence fabulation that the stone was transported from Minnesota more plausible than the simplest explanation? Unless you can come up with a credible theory of who transported it, how, when, and for what gain, and how it came to be buried and then found... you've got nothing other than, to borrow a phrase, an epic adventure that you desperately want to be true.
For the record, I have no desire, desperate or otherwise, for this to be true or false. I have no historical, ethnic or other attachment to the story. I simply looked at the evidence, and it's obvious which side of the argument is ignoring the evidence it doesn't like...