Well, that was interesting. This was a wonderful hour of television, if only because the show itself was forced to concede that forensic geologist and show host Scott Wolter’s vaunted geological re-dating of stone artifacts produces false results and can’t be trusted. We now have no reason to believe any of his dating of other stones now or in the future.

America Unearthed S01E09 “Motive for Murder” begins with a disclaimer that on this “special episode” the murder investigation forensic geologist Scott Wolter is about to undertake contains images that “may be disturbing.” Insert your own joke here. We proceed to a reenactment of Meriwether Lewis sitting at his desk recording his famous expedition across America, which the on-screen graphics state include “secret” information that had been suppressed. We then see Lewis commit suicide with a pistol. The “disturbing” image is the blood splattering on a map hung upon the wall. The on-screen text tells us that Lewis died of multiple gunshot wounds, calling into question the suicide theory.

Then we see the opening credits.

If you’re a fan of the History Channel, you already know where this is going because you’ve seen this story before, in 2010, when it was called “Secret Presidential Codes” and was the second episode of Brad Meltzer’s Decoded. In that episode, we also went through the claims that Lewis had been murdered rather than committed suicide. Meltzer’s show suggested Lewis had been assassinated because he possessed President Thomas Jefferson’s secret codes. Scott Wolter is going to go in a different direction, however.

Lewis’s suicide is widely accepted by historians, but questions about whether he was murdered have been discussed since the 1800s. There is nothing exciting here, to be honest with you. I’ve said before that this period of history isn’t really that interesting to me, and the exact nature of Lewis’s death doesn’t really change anything about American history.

Scott Wolter arrives at journalist Don Shelby’s home in Minnesota to discuss the “missing” pages of Lewis’s journal. Shelby, a retired local TV news anchor, believes (without evidence) that Lewis was murdered and the pages stolen to suppress facts that were “frightening” to “that day and age.” What are these facts? Shelby is very interested in why Thomas Jefferson asked Lewis to look for evidence of Welsh colonization of the Louisiana Territory. He believes Lewis found this and that the government suppressed the fact because it would take “the whole idea of American colonial history, our very foundation, and toss it out the window.”

He knows nothing of history. No mention of Welsh Indians occurs in Jefferson’s instructions to Lewis, dated June 20, 1803. Instead, on January 22, 1804, Jefferson wrote to Lewis that a Welshman named Mr. (John) Evans had explored the St. Louis region in search of Welsh Indians and that his map would be helpful. Jefferson expressed no belief in Welsh Indians in these letters (though like his contemporaries he wondered if it could be true), and he makes no explicit instruction that Lewis should look for Welsh Indians. All of the books I consulted about Jefferson’s instructions to Lewis make no mention of a directive to find Welsh Indians, except for Stephen Ambrose’s Undaunted Courage, which provides no source. Ambrose mentions that Jefferson supposedly told Lewis in 1802 (before the Louisiana Purchase) that an expedition might find the fabled Welsh Indians, though this was not an explicit objective, more of a statement of curiosity. (If someone knows where this presidential mandate is written, I'd like very much to see it.) America Unearthed is therefore wrong in claiming an 1803 “presidential mandate” to find Welsh Indians.

What Jefferson did ask for was a list of vocabularies of the various Native tribes west of the Mississippi, which he hoped would help him prove that the Native Americans descended from Asiatic peoples of Russia, a subject he had discussed years before in his Notes on the State of Virginia. His preliminary finding was the many Native American words were similar to Russian languages (implying a Bering Sea entry point from Asia), and he hoped to find more. Unfortunately, he wasn’t able to do this because the trunk with vocabulary lists was stolen from him in 1809 en route from Washington to Monticello, and the thief, unable to read the Native words, thought it worthless and simply threw it all in the James River! (Or was it part of the conspiracy? Dun-dun-dun!)

According to the History of the Expedition of the Command of Lewis and Clark, in 1764 (nearly three centuries after European contact) a French trader discovered “white” Indians with beards on the Missouri (it was actually 1737, according to modern accounts), referencing apparently some Native group that had intermarried with the Spanish or French explorers of the region. In 1805, William Clarke’s servant York (an African-American) apparently went around telling people that he and the expedition had found a tribe of white Indians, but York was famous for his wild tall tales, and he was apparently exaggerating from the somewhat fairer complexion of the Mandan Indians, whom Lewis and Clarke had met in 1805, and who were quite taken by York’s dark skin. York’s stories ended up quoted as fact in the New York Medical Repository in 1806 and from there entered the realm of alternative history. Native peoples, of course, are not uniformly of one color, and they vary greatly in the shades of their skins depending on genetic and environmental factors.

In the America of 1809, theories about white colonists of the pre-Columbian age were all the rage, and as I recently discussed, the myth that white colonists predated the Native Americans became the official policy of the United States government, in large measure as a way of justifying the seizure of Native American land. Not only would the U.S. government of the age have welcomed evidence that white people predated Native Americans, they would have trumpeted it from Georgia to Maine as proof that land seizures were justified, since in those days it was often assumed that Native peoples had been on the land only a few centuries. When the United States gained independence from Britain, all prior British claims—including those of the Welsh—transferred to America’s sovereignty. Therefore, the discovery of Welsh interlopers in pre-Columbian America would have had no effect whatsoever on America’s sovereignty. Even the discovery of Welsh land claims in Louisiana would be rather useless since there was no Welsh occupation between 600 CE and 1800, meaning that the land had long been considered “abandoned” under international law.

Wolter seems to think that Welsh Indians would have given the Welsh the right to the American land, which is ridiculous since the title to Louisiana had passed through Spanish and French hands before becoming American, and the British made no move to contest the transfer on the grounds that they owned Wales. (The British were well aware of claims of Welsh colonization, which the original British colonists had been making for a hundred years; they surely would have asserted such claims against Spain or France had they thought anything of them, on even the flimsiest grounds.)

Of course no one cared about the Native Americans. They are only there as decoration, or as the unfortunately degenerate descendants of superior white invaders.

In support of this, we look at the Brandenburg Stone, found in Kentucky, for a long time housed in Indiana, and now again in Kentucky, another disputed artifact covered in badly-written scratch marks that are supposedly Welsh. Wolter examines the stone using his best geological analysis and concludes it can be no more recent than 1492. According to a translation made by the Arthurian Society of Wales, it reads "Toward strength (to promote unity), divide the land we are spread over, purely (or justly) between offspring in wisdom." It was found in 1912, during a widespread outbreak of fake artifacts, and nothing on the stone would have been impossible to fake in 1912. The show is honest enough to let Shelby explain that the stone’s writing can date no earlier than the eighteenth century (because it’s fake pseudo-Welsh writing invented by a known hoaxer in the 1700s!), calling into question Wolter’s geological credibility since he just finished asserting that the stone is unlikely to be newer than 1492 based on his extensive geological training. Wolter also talked about the provenance of the stone and how that was needed to really date it, which is a laugh since he didn’t care about that at all when it came to the Dare Stones. [Update: see follow-up here.]

Note carefully: Scott Wolter’s own show conclusively demonstrated that his microscopic technique for dating rocks—his so called “new” science of archaeopetrography—produces false results that are off by centuries. We can safely ignore his dating claims now that a real-life test of his technique has proved him wrong.

More than fifty similar stones have been found, and none has passed archaeological muster.

We also hear that the Mandan tribe of Native Americans was Welsh, a sad restatement of old Victorian racist discussions that were well-debunked many decades ago. (The claim was spurred by Welsh nationalism, something Britain wanted to suppress.) A thorough review of the linguistics of the Mandan tribe finds no connection to Welsh but rather to other Native languages. No DNA studies have ever found a European connection. Instead, the story is a fanciful one, traceable back to early Welsh colonists who tried to connect the Mandan to the folklore of Prince Madoc, who supposedly traveled across the ocean in the Middle Ages. As mentioned, many Native tribes vary in skin tone, and at any rate the “white” Mandan weren’t seen until several centuries after Europeans had been in America, plenty of time for genetic transfer from Spanish or French explorers, should Europeans have been the cause of their particular skin tone.

Wolter engages in some conspiracy-mongering, eventually tying Lewis’s supposed murder to his status as a Freemason, and he raises no objection when the Masons he interviews explain to him that the Masons only originated in their modern form in the 1700s—a direct contradiction of Wolter’s assertion in the past that Masons descend directly from the Knights Templar.

Wolter wants to test Lewis’s Masonic apron’s blood stains, but I don’t see how the blood could possibly explain whether Meriwether Lewis was murdered. If the blood is his, it could be due to either suicide or murder, and if it is not his, it implies nothing since there is (a) no claim that the shooter was injured and (b) there is no way to know when the blood was deposited on the apron. I also don’t want to be indelicate here, but the “family member” used for comparison after two centuries might not actually be a direct descendant of Meriwether Lewis. For example, infidelity, adoption, etc. can contaminate the bloodlines. A positive match can prove a connection, but no match is not negative evidence due to the aforementioned complications of human relationships.

An interesting vignette occurs at the end of the episode when Shelby explains to Wolter how his geology has failed in the face of the fact that the Brandenburg Stone is an obvious hoax, and that the claim of medieval Welsh Indians was in all likelihood invented to help Britain establish a prior claim to America to supersede Spain’s fifteenth-century claims. Wolter, instead of defending his science, instead turns toward the Masonic apron and the murder-mystery, all but abandoning his entire thesis about Welsh colonization in the hope of distracting viewers from his complete and total failure as an “archaeopetrographer,” on which he stakes his reputation and makes his living. What a crock.

Wolter is very excited that DNA testing reveals that Lewis’s Masonic apron has two sources of blood, and Wolter believes that the blood was that of one or more murderers because Masons keep their aprons clean and therefore the blood must have been deposited on the night of his death. Of course, it’s been two hundred years; it could have found its way there at any time, including during the handling of his body and effects after his death.

Wolter suggests that Lewis was killed to cover up a Welsh land claim from the Middle Ages. His evidence for the cover up? A “presidential mandate” to find Welsh Indians that doesn’t exist and a “Welsh” land claim stone that is a hoax.

The truth? Lewis’s own expedition talked regularly about the Welsh Indians, and they made no secret about their speculation that the Flatheads, Mandans, or others might be they. The story of Welsh Indians was printed far and wide in newspapers and newsletters, and it was widely repeated for decades afterward. Any conspiracy that sought to assassinate Lewis to “cover up” the fact did a terrible job, and by 1830, Andrew Jackson was using the possibility of pre-Columbian white colonization as part of the U.S. government’s official policy of removing Native Americans from the eastern United States, the same U.S. government Wolter thinks was engaged in assassination to cover up the "true" history of prehistoric White America. Seriously, has he spent even a moment reading about the actual ideas and opinions of the dead people for whom he claims to speak?
 


Comments

Lynn Brant
02/16/2013 2:01pm

Again I say, it's your job to review these shows so the rest of us don't have to watch them. Thanks again!

ps The Jefferson connection here bothers me. Just think of all the geometry in Monticello, and what Scott might do with that!

Reply
Rocky R Rockbourne
02/19/2013 6:44am

I second this. I watched a couple episodes a while back and knew my time would be better spent just skipping to the debunking thenceforth. Needless to say, this show annoyed me enough to get me to revisit a lot of alternative history nonsense that had been foisted upon me in some bygone era, and just lately have I really begun to realize how deep the white supremacist rabbit hole really goes.

Reply
intelligentheating
02/16/2013 2:32pm

Just thought I would add an observation and question as a result of last nights show:

1.) There was some discussion of the Native Americans using round boats that looked similar to Coracles, thus this implied some form of Welsh contact. A cursory glance at even Wikipedia will show that round water craft like this (and of various sizes) have been found not just in Wales, but also England, Ireland, Scotland, India, Tibet, Iraq and Vietnam.

The round watercraft used by the Native peoples doesn't really prove anything beyond that fact that peoples across the world evidently saw round vessels like this as easy to construct and useful. Of course I am sure some cultures learned their construction from neighboring peoples (for example in the British Isles), but to suggest this is evidence the Welsh arrived in the middle of the US in the 12th century is a bit of a leap!

2.) Was the scientist who studied the blood sample suggesting the second DNA sample found on the apron could have come from contamination/saliva? I felt like we didn't get to hear enough on the tests.

Reply
Varika
02/16/2013 2:48pm

Yes, the scientist did say it could have (and in fact probably did) come from contamination. Actually, I would have been interested to have the profiles of Wolter and the two Freemasons provided, since airborn saliva comes out of every mouth when it speaks, and they weren't exactly silent and using masks around the apron...

Reply
02/16/2013 4:36pm

Round watercraft are found all around the world? Must be aliens then! And Welch aliens at that. At least we know that is true given the documentary evidence we have from "Torchwood."

Reply
intelligentheating
02/16/2013 4:46pm

Ahh yes, or Doctor Who - I believe that is a BBC Wales production!

Christopher Randolph
02/20/2013 1:35am

It's funny you mention this, when I was showing a friend of mine who spent years in Ireland my travel photos from Vietnam, he chuckled about how much some of the Vietnamese fishing boats looked like ones he saw in Ireland.

Of course his conclusion was that this is the easiest way for people to make boats using certain materials, not that the Irish taught the Vietnamese how to fish.

But then my friend isn't a racist idiot.

Reply
intelligentheating
02/22/2013 8:16pm

"Of course his conclusion was that this is the easiest way for people to make boats using certain materials, not that the Irish taught the Vietnamese how to fish."

That was the same conclusion I came too. I'm sure if we were to dig back into the historical record we could find other examples as well.

"But then my friend isn't a racist idiot."

And doesn't have a TV show grasping at straws to sell advertising space ;)


Varika
02/16/2013 2:46pm

The only thing even REMOTELY interesting in the whole show--aside from the amusement factor of having Wolter told to his face that his so-called "medieval artifact" was not only a forgery but could be definitively linked to a SPECIFIC FORGER (I really did laugh out loud at that!)--was mention of the two gunshot wounds, one in the abdomen and one in the head. And he didn't even talk about what would have been TRULY interesting about that, which is that most suicides pick one place--either the torso or the head--to shoot, or talk about the available firearms at the time, wherein the likelihood would have been that he would have had to stop and reload (though a double-barrel pistol or even the presence of two pistols would negate this), or anything along those lines.

Unfortunately, at least from what is revealed in the show, even the presence of two wounds seems to be somewhat apocryphal, and even if it were 100% proveable truth that he was shot twice and shot by someone other than himself....isn't it far more likely that one of the Grinders, or another overnight guest, would have been the perpetrator for financial gain rather than some shadowy government official? I mean, it's not like we have tons of records of skeevy trading post owners and highway bandits spanning centuries, right?

Reply
AmandaM
04/03/2013 11:08pm

I remember reading that one of the reasons why Lewis wasn't keeping up with his journal-writing was because he was in too much pain from a gunshot he received while hunting with a man named Cruzatte. The shot is described as in the leg, in the buttock, or in the belly, depending upon the writer. I don't know if this wound was completely healed or not by the time of his death, but it seems a possible way he could have got blood on the apron.

Reply
L Bean
02/16/2013 5:05pm

The further down the rabbit hole this guy goes, the more I'm reminded that he was part of the 9-11 investigation. Not to go all truther - really there's no point in going there - but THIS is what it means to be a go-to expert in today's America. Credentials mean absolutely nothing wrt a person's "seriousness", and overspecialization is turning us al into morons.

Ironically, the distrust that AE's target audience feels towards academia is completely justified, but rather because of the Wolters of the world, not the scientific community, which as you point out has no lobby(another "feature, not bug" of the system).

Reply
intelligentheating
02/16/2013 5:08pm

Oh and I am going to be a pendant here:

John Dee certainly 'may' (I've not read a huge amount about him to be honest) have been a promoter of the idea of a British Empire and some form of Union, however there was no British Empire when he lived as the journalist alluded to. I hear this time and time again on the "History" channel - the inability to differentiate between the various periods of history within the British Isles.

The Union of Crowns, which linked the Crowns of Scotland and England (but not the governments) happened in 1603 - 5 years prior to Dee's death. However it was another 104 years before the British state came into existence. In fact one of the factors that contributed to the Act of Union was Scotland's colonization attempts draining the countries coffers (the Darien project being an example).

In Dee's time these were colonization projects by the Kingdom of England, of which the Welsh principality was a part. Dee I believe had Welsh ancestry, as did the Tudors - so it is not especially surprising that the story of Prince Madoc may have been familiar to them and used as an excuse to justify North American colonization.

Generally speaking 'Briton', 'British', and Welsh' (in the various forms) in the medieval period (i.e. prior to Dee) was used to refer to those who came from the remaining Brythonic speaking peoples within the British Isles (and North West France) - those roughly being Wales, Cornwall, The Isles of Scilly, parts of Cumbria and Strathclyde and Brittany.

They wouldn't have meant Anglo-Saxons, Danes, Scots or Norman and by extension of that the English in general.

Reply
J.
02/17/2013 4:43pm

Always liked the irony of how the world Welsh comes from the Anglo-Saxon for "foreigner."

Reply
Colavito Fan Club
02/16/2013 9:17pm

Rocky Colavito was a home-run hitting outfielder for the Cleveland Indians in the 1950's. Today another Colavito is "hitting them out of the park" when it comes to his reviews of the dishonest and deceptive programming promoted by Committee Films, History Channel and Mr. Wolter.

Keep those “home run” reviews coming Jason!!!

Reply
02/16/2013 10:31pm

As part of his training for the expedition, Jefferson had Lewis spend time with Caspar Wistar, who taught him the basics of paleotology, such as it was at the time (the word was still thirty years in the future). Jefferson wanted Lewis to keep an eye open for fossils and mammoths. Jefferson did not believe in extinction and thought mammothss and mastodons lived in some unexplored part of the West. Maybe Lewis was killed because he knew too much about the hiding place of the mammoths.

John Dee coined the phrase Great Britain not to describe the actual political structure or anything else. It was as flattery to Queen Elizabeth who he hoped would invest in his colonization schemes. Dee's colonization schemes focussed on the far North, not on the Mississippi valley. He hoped to have England well established. as owners of the Northwest Passage.

Bonus trivia: Dee was not impressed with the name America. He thought the northern continent should have been named Atlantis. He didn't think it was Plato's Atlantis; he just thought the name was appropriate.

Reply
Christopher Randolph
02/20/2013 1:43am

I thought that the great in "Great Britain" merely described the size of the island of Britain in relation to the size of Bretagne/Brittany when the Kingdom of England (on said island) and Brittany were one political unit. The big island was the larger of the two places where Britons lived.

Reply
Ted
02/17/2013 6:20am

Why is it that at the end of each of these episodes I feel like I just wasted an hour of my life? Wolter is horrible. He’s lousy at science, history, and investigations. The best revelation was the discovery that his method of dating stone inscriptions is pure quackery.

Reply
J.
02/17/2013 4:48pm

Something that's popped up in these reviews lately is how the claims laid out at the beginning of an episode are largely discarded and ignored by the end of the episode. So either Wolter or the show's production is also lousy at presenting an argument.

That seriously irritates the hell out of me. I wouldn't accept that from my students, yet Wolter is supposed to have some sort of academic veneer about it. I think that's just a faked patina, not something he gained by age and experience. Sort of like the stones he dates.

Reply
Joe
02/26/2013 5:38pm

That's really the most fascinating part of the show for me...trying to figure out what the grand plan really is. There's plenty of alternative theories out there that Wolter could settle on and stick with through the entire show. It really makes no sense at all for him to make wild claims, then have to abandon them for even wilder ones later on.

My best guess is it may just be poor planning on the part of him and the producers. Perhaps by the time they split up the production schedule (like how most every "separate" visit he's supposedly made to England this season was likely done in one trip) and filmed, they lost the ability to create cohesive storylines, forcing them to just throw something together during the closing segment. But even that theory doesn't explain how they'd allow him to be directly contradicted and discredited in this episode. Even if that ended up happening during filming, surely you'd want to leave that part out or finesse around it to avoid embarrassing the host.

Lynn Brant
02/17/2013 7:27am

Since I don't watch the show but just read Jason's reviews, I didn't see the segment where the stone dating was said to be inconclusive.

I hate to ask this, but since the whole show was done by Wolter & Co., and they only include what they want, and heavily scripted and contrived at that, why was this even allowed to air?

Reply
02/17/2013 7:37am

There is a difference between Wolter, as host, and the producers as TV professionals, so we can't view the show itself as always 100% in agreement with its host's ideas. This TV show is clearly scripted and written before the interviews and footage are shot. Given the time constraints and budget issues with producing weekly TV, once they had decided to include the stone, they pretty much had to go through with showing it or risk losing the money invested in traveling to view it.

I imagine that like the "Viking" sword in an earlier episode, the stone was meant to be the token hoax the show could debunk to make its claims look stronger. I am only speculating here, but I'm guessing the producers didn't expect Wolter to conclude it was ancient, but by that point they had already invested in travel and filming and had to include it.

Reply
Lynn Brant
02/17/2013 8:34am

That would make sense except that my understanding is that Wolter and the producers are the original partners, who then went out to sell the program to the History Channel, or anyone else who would buy it. My assumption has been, and I may be wrong, that History, after deciding to take it, basically said to edit to certain specs and they'll just run it. Again, I didn't even watch it, but don't see why something unflattering couldn't have been edited out, or at least softened.

02/17/2013 9:15am

They softened it as much as they could. While in my review, I have lumped the information together by topic, in the episode, Wolter's examination of the stone (which was an expensive location shoot and therefore had to be used) is placed near the beginning, but the revelation that it's a 1700s hoax comes about half an hour later, giving the viewers time to forget he had declared it pre-1450. To be honest, given the way this show is edited, I can't be entirely certain that the 1700s hoax info wasn't spliced in after production was complete when they discovered it was a hoax and had to acknowledge the obvious.

J.
02/17/2013 4:52pm

As far as token hoaxes go, that one was crap. We're to believe Wolter apparently has access to all of the resources the U. of Minnesota has to offer, yet he can't manage to do a little background checking himself, or hire some flunkie or get an intern to do it for him.

Neither Coelbren nor Jefferson's Welsh New World exploration theories are exactly secret. Unless they are to Wolter, and that's all part of the conspiracy -- to keep Wolter from accessing public knowledge. Good job, conspiracy!

Colavito Fan Club
02/17/2013 8:11am

It appears that this series doesn’t follow any type of editorial and production guidelines. A credible program would be as truthful and complete as possible, would fully disclosure partner interests, would NOT be used for self-promotion and would NEVER blatantly mislead the audience.

That’s why I view this program as dishonest and deceptive and a perversion of history and science. Shame on the History Channel and the producers of this program who demonstrate a lack of standards and NO program integrity.

Reply
William Smith
02/17/2013 12:56pm

Wolter is a member of the MES of Ohio. He and the H2 site are promoted on their home page. He is on their fall schedule to speak. Lyn Brant - As a member of the MES and supporter in the past of Scott Wolter are you going to the fall meeting?

Reply
J.
02/17/2013 5:04pm

I'm a little surprised Wolter didn't take the opportunity to light out for Wales to get some unrelated data to pad the episode. Maybe such trips are only saved for Ireland.

But as JC points out, the biggest blind spot in this episode seems to be the weird claim that the U.S. government's legitimacy of claims to the land would be in question had the Welsh been here before Columbus. Even if we accept that for the sake of argument, we still have to take the claim on its face, which is that the Welsh who (supposedly) had come to the U.S. then intermixed with an Native American tribe. Which would effectively and legally make them members of that tribe, especially at a time when just having a great-grandparent of some non-white ethnic group was enough to have one legally declared part of a non-white race. (And if you're talking Native American blood quantum laws, which go back to before Jefferson's time, it could go back as far as 1/32 lineage.)

I don't think Wolter's intention is to imply white ethnic legal claims to pre-Colombian America, but it sure comes off that way. And it's creepy.

Reply
02/17/2013 9:55pm

Jason,

In your haste to try and discredit me, you are getting careless. If you had listened carefully you would have heard me say the weathering of the Brandenburg Stone COULD pre-date Columbus. In the next sentence, I said because the provenance of the artifact was unknown, and therefore the weathering environment it was exposed to is unknown, we can not say how old the inscription is. You obviously thought you heard something different, but I invite you suffer through the episode one more time to check the facts.

I'm sure you'll be happy to know the weathering studies I perform are still valid, reproduceable, and working just fine.

I do enjoy the banter on your site and take pleasure knowing that the very people I'm talking about who have let us down continue to prove me right.

Scott

Reply
02/18/2013 7:01am

Scott,

If you read carefully, you'll see I duly noted that you discussed the problems caused by provenance, something left out of the depictions of your previous datings, such as the Dare Stones. In that case, you declared the stone carvings to be 400 years old without provenance based on your weathering analysis.

So, am I to take it that the rules change from artifact to artifact, or that your program simply leaves out essential information about how you conduct the tests depicted therein?

Oh, and while we're at it, could you please provide the presidential directive requesting Lewis to hunt for Welsh Indians? It does not appear in the Library of Congress's Jefferson Papers.

Reply
02/18/2013 8:28am

As requested, Scott, I went back and transcribed your statement. Here is what you said: "My analysis of the stone’s weathering suggests it could have been carved before 1492, but there is no way to get a more precise date because it was taken out of its original environment, and its provenance isn’t clear." The clear implication is that you concluded it was carved before 1492, but the exact number of years before then could not be determined. Nothing in your statement suggests that you considered a post-Contact date.

Reply
Lynn Brant
02/18/2013 8:35am

Just to note, you couldn't get anything even wildly approaching a precise date no matter how much provenance was known. The provenance for the KRS, by the way, is nothing but anecdotal.

Will Ritson
05/05/2013 12:51am

This is exactly what frustrates me about this blog. The host of the show posts a reply to the blog author's claim, and he is met with commentary on the blog author's perceptions (sorry... on what is implied by AU... apparently to all of us).

I COULD HAVE been elected president last year.

True statement.

Am I misleading the blogosphere because I didn't run for office?

Varika
02/18/2013 12:35pm

Oh, it's amazing. I can totally hear your voice actually saying what you've written in my head.

Also, if you had difficulty dating this, to the point where you thought it even MIGHT have been carved in pre-Columbian times, doesn't that entirely negate your statement a few episodes ago that it's "easy" to tell fakes? I can't tell you which episode since they're not On Demand and I clear the DVR after I watch an episode, but I do remember that it was a conversation with a lady that was several minutes long, wherein you both agreed that it was "easy to tell fakes." Yet here, a few episodes later, you can't tell at a glance that this stone was a forgery and assign it even as a POSSIBILITY a pre-Columbian, "authentic" date...

Reply
Henry Hyde
02/18/2013 11:02pm

Hey there Scotty, we were wondering when you would check back in. Couldn’t resist tossing in your two cents to all the people you apparently don’t care about, huh? I’ve got a question for you: do you ever stop and ponder why everyone thinks you’re a nut? Even the wackadoos who believe in the same crap that you’ve built the house of cards you call a career on (i.e. the Kensington Rube Stone) are coming out of the woodwork to throw you under the bus!

There are a couple of things going on here that I don’t think you quite get, Scooter. First, there’s no reason to discredit you, you’ve done a better job of that than any blogger could ever hope to. Second, barely anyone in the scientific community besides your old teachers knows or cares who you are and the ones that do use your name as a punch line. The only thing you’ve done by amassing a devoted audience of the lowest common denominator to that awful reality show of yours is to ensure that in the worst recession in memory the people who are employed by your company will soon be out of work.

Good job!

Reply
Janiece Stamper
02/18/2013 11:28pm

Wow this is a really tough crowd.
Is is just me, or is harshness here the rule rather than the exception?
I'm still a fan, and I have a feeling that the show will get better, just me being hopeful. I was not happy about this particular show, that doesn't mean I don't like the concept.
Janiece

Janiece Stamper
02/18/2013 4:19pm

Jason, on this one I think you called it, I was disappointed in the show. I really have a problem with the bend it came to.
And since I'm a descendent of the said John Evans, find the entire show wasted.
There are so many other interesting stories out there, I'm saddened that they would work this one. The conclusions were not sound.
I like this show, hopefully they will get their act together.
Janiece Stamper

Reply
Henry Hyde
02/19/2013 12:10am

Yes,Janiece, it is just you. But I suppose you have a point. Why DO people who know what they're talking about have to be SO mean to those who want so desperately to take it on faith that ancient Europeans riding on fire-breathing Norse Unicorns flew to North America in space ships from Egypt to carve nonsensical gibberish that even they wouldn't be able to read in random stones, conquering the land and teaching the ignorant natives how to build in the tradition of the Masons and Knights Templar which, of course, absolutely proves that Minnesota is the birthplace of Humanity. Yeah, that's so harsh. We all owe you and Scott a big apology, and a cake, and a pony.

Reply
Henry Hyde
02/19/2013 12:12am

:(

Janiece Stamper
02/19/2013 12:33am

Thank you Henry, I appreciate your honest reply. Getting offended would be a sad response.
I don't desperately want anything, except if you ARE giving out ponies and cakes, keep me in mind.
The only thing I find 'desperate' is a closed mind, and while I don't believe that Minnesota is the birthplace of humanity, it is a nice state, (ducking). I've already been called a racist, don't want Minnesotans (?) coming down on me.
No, I don't buy all of the the stuff being peddled, but I do know there is a culture that persecutes those that question. That is why many came to this land, because they questioned a king and a religion. The Swedes came first, then William Penn, all to practice and believe as they wished.
Are you all losing your sense of humor or is it just your humanity? I'm just asking questions, poking around, but it seems a bit sore and tender here, which is fine, I play well with others.
And yes, the venom does amuse me.
Let me know about that pony, can I pick a color, or do you do that for me as well? Just sayin'
Janiece

Henry Hyde
02/19/2013 7:46am

Janiece,
There's such a thing as so being open-minded that your brains fall out. It's sad that you are so against being educated and would rather indulge in paranoid fantasies about evil Archeologists, Professors and Scientists sitting hunched in dark rooms, behind closed doors and spinning up conspiracies to suppress information because they don't like that you personally believe something different (BWAH-HA-HA!!) rather than looking at actual evidence and demanding that new theories are based on real scientific testing and research instead of just channelling the latest Dan Brown novel. You have no idea what you're talking about and are embarrassing yourself over and over by claiming to represent some oppressed minority of self-educated prophets who just want spread the gospel of Wolter, Ancient Aliens, crystal skull stories, government conspiracies, blah-blah-blah. Your foot perpetually lives in your mouth and you can't even taste it. You're not a patriot, or continuing in the tradition of the founders of the country by not using your head.

I'll let you know about the pony.

Janiece Stamper
02/19/2013 3:15pm

Henry you take the cake and the pony... LOL you accuse me of being uneducated and having paranoid fantasies, you are a trip, not one I wish to follow.
Jason this site is quickly showing its damaged roots with this kind of hateful exchange on non-sense rants, and attacking those that would challenge what your saying, or even agreeing with your conclusions, as I did on this one subject.
So far (much to my amusement) I've been called a racist, desperate, of having paranoid fantasies, having no education, etc.
That kind of paranoia is always present when someone doesn't like what others are saying, when in fact this is exactly the kind of thing that leads to persecution, censorship, and wanton abuse. How does this solve any of these questions?
I will continue to use my education, and certain questioning to poke at these obvious bullies, and talk about putting you're foot in your mouth. Yikes Henry dial back on the coffee.
Janiece

Henry Hyde
02/19/2013 3:57pm

Ponies are only available in green this time of year for St. Patrick's Day. Don't forget your tinfoil hat or the government will steal your thoughts.

Janiece Stamper
02/19/2013 6:48pm

Thank you Henry, would love a pony of any color, and though I'm not into hats, I'll keep that in mind.
Janiece

Martin
02/18/2013 5:12pm

I've tried to watch AU and AA but become frustrated fifteen minutes in. There is more to discover and truth may indeed be at odds with current understanding. Here's the rub; for those of us without degrees, time nor resourses, these shows bring locations to us we may never visit. Sites of interest and wonder. Books on these subjects are good, but whom to believe. Be it Ancient Aliens, Wolter, Jacobovic, Hancock, Collins, Velikovsky, Rohl, James, they give us access and answers, even if incorrect at times. Sometimes just the plain logic they propose is of interest. There is a great amount of educational tyranny in today's universities, from politics to archeology.
Give us great unwashed masses something more to see and read on these great sites or events and I'd be glad to do so. Investigate the mysteries instead of pushing them aside as a hoax. Answer some of their questions and mine factually and not they're just sensations, etc.

To what oracle should I listen to? I can find Handcock on YouTube. Can someone answer his Great Pyraid observations without the "he's just a loose screw" response. A name or site?

Reply
Lynn Brant
02/18/2013 5:19pm

Martin, The problem is, many of the correct answers would be boring, and a show about them wouldn't make as much money as polished speculation. It's a lot easier to make it entertaining when you are unconstrained by those correct answers.

Reply
02/18/2013 5:22pm

One of the great failures of modern media is that they hype sensation and shortchange education. That said, books like "1491" are a good place to start learnign about American prehistory.

As for Hancock, could you be more specific about the pyramid observations? Alternative speculators have proposed more than 100 mutually-contradictory pyramid theories, as outlined in my book "Pyramidiots!"

Reply
Sherm
02/19/2013 9:38am

William, So poor little scooter feels let down. I would imagine Neilson also feels a bit let down by his former co-author after scoot puked all over him. There are many hard working and passionate pre-columbo researchers, armature archaeologists and good writers and he is not one of them.


Quote the scoot;



"I do enjoy the banter on your site and take pleasure knowing that the very people I'm talking about who have let us down continue to prove me right".

Scott


...........................................................................

REPLY....

Quote,,,,

"Couldn’t resist tossing in your two cents to all the people you apparently don’t care about, huh? I’ve got a question for you: do you ever stop and ponder why everyone thinks you’re a nut?" HH....



You sure hit that nail on the head.

Those gun activevists may say he is running around with a gun half-cocked. Folks in minnesota also know that there are NO bullets in his gun. The wanabe jones admits he had never heard of the KRS prior to his collaboration with Neilson. Scoot does not handle rejection well... When the well respected and much older Neilson tried to distance himself from scoot and his fuzzy math, scoot exploded and drove hundreds of miles to attack with his screaming and hollering and harassing Neilson and a loud outburst during the Henric Williams/Richard Neilson lecture tour that both disrupted the filming and resulted in police reports being taken. (and then he see's himself as " HIGHLY PROFESSIONAL"!?)



He see's bad news as good news and believes that personal attacks help sell his books. As his theories on rocks began to crumble and people began to walk out of his lectures or talks,,, he has now expanded his lack of any real background knowledge on ancient america to subjects he is totally clueless on.



The evidence of possible viking native contact that can be made for the Mandans is growing and the welsh claims were dismissed by Catlin long ago as well as the claims that the french or spanish or early explorers could have fathered these white indians.

The Mandans deserve better,,, respect, and more research.



The wanabe jones may have tried to change his spots and tried going without a razor for a few days to project a kinder gentler skunk but he shows no passion and he lacks heart and soul and is an embarrassment to all Minnesota. He has combined an info-mercial with the Rocky and Bullwinkle show playing both Boris and Natasha.


I can but hope that with the coming of spring and a continuing economic recovery he will disappear with the melting snow and ice.

I would not recommend standing to close to him with all those drones overhead.

Remember to laugh loud and often!

Reply
Gus
02/19/2013 9:58am

So, by Wolter's logic, if I have someone else's blood stain on my clothing, that essentially proves I was murdered by that person. The man is a true scientist.

Also, the thing that gets me every time is when he says things like, "What had to have happened was..." when he could just as easily say, "What I think happened was..." So instead of coming off like a well-meaning kook, he comes off as unhinged.

Reply
Lynn Brant
02/20/2013 9:07am

The show prompted me to go back and re-read on the concept of pathological science. I think it fits, how about you? The following is a brief description (wiki) of pathological science. Does this fit America Unearthed?


Pathological science, as defined by Langmuir, is a psychological process in which a scientist, originally conforming to the scientific method, unconsciously veers from that method, and begins a pathological process of wishful data interpretation (see the Observer-expectancy effect, and cognitive bias). Some characteristics of pathological science are:

The maximum effect that is observed is produced by a causative agent of barely detectable intensity, and the magnitude of the effect is substantially independent of the intensity of the cause.

The effect is of a magnitude that remains close to the limit of detectability, or many measurements are necessary because of the very low statistical significance of the results.

There are claims of great accuracy.

Fantastic theories contrary to experience are suggested.

Criticisms are met by ad hoc excuses.

The ratio of supporters to critics rises and then falls gradually to oblivion.

Reply
Colavito Fan Club
02/20/2013 9:39am

Great information Lynn!!! A perfect fit. Thanks!

Reply
Ken
03/02/2013 1:08pm

Mr. Colavito, I was hoping to get a more truthful version of the story here (and not saying you haven’t provided more truth) but you are almost as bad as Mr. Wolter on in the opposite direction. This areticle is clearly vindictive and subjective. When I read this I felt as though I needed to split the show and your article to come to a conclusion. At one point you say regarding the mandate the show is wrong and in quotes state unless someone can prove otherwise. In that case, the show is not wrong; you believe it to be wrong.... say that. You state the blood implies nothing, that is ABSOLUTELY FALSE, it could imply a number of things, <-- you should have said that and followed it by because there are so many implications it does not necessarily support Wolter's conclusions followed by your statements regarding cross contamination and blood line corruption.

I do appreciate what you are doing here; I just wish it appeared more about providing people who are not professional archaeologists or historians objective fact and solid subjective opinion than attacking Mr. Wolter.

If you are right and your facts stand on their own then you should let your intelligence and knowledge do the talking but to make at least part of your article peronal against Wolter gives it a less credible feel.

Reply
03/02/2013 1:24pm

I'm not quite sure I understand your issue. The show is wrong about the presidential mandate because there is no documentary evidence to support it. I've read Jefferson's papers, and it's not there. However, I am open to someone proving otherwise by uncovering a lost Jefferson letter not in the Jefferson papers. That's not being dishonest... that's me saying that the facts as known do not support the claim, and anyone looking to support the claim needs to provide new evidence.

I also am not sure what your problem is with what I said about the blood. The mere presence of blood on the apron implies nothing about the murder. It could be used as evidence for a number of scenarios, several of which do not involve the murder. Therefore, the blood itself is not evidence of a murder.

Reply
Ken
03/02/2013 3:00pm

I never meant to imply in any way you are being dishonest!!! I never thought that. I do appreciate what you do here! I also appreciate you wrote me back. I am certainly not trying to be offensive.

Ken
03/02/2013 3:21pm

Regarding the 1st paragraph, “America Unearthed is therefore wrong” and something like “Based on all available information, America Unearthed is therefore wrong” are 2 totally different statements. The 1st is a statement of fact, the second is an educated conclusion that recognized something is missing. I know it is semantics but when someone like me is reading this, I do see the difference.

Regarding the blood, it may apply to the murder or it may not. With the information I have seen, either is equally likely. Do you not agree?

03/02/2013 5:55pm

What you're proposing about the blood is what's called a "false dichotomy," a logical fallacy. You're suggesting there are two possibilities: murder or not murder. This isn't the case. There are many possibilities. For example: (a) The blood spilled on the apron sometime during the 200 years after Lewis died and therefore has nothing to do with him. (b) The blood belongs to Lewis, and his descendant is unaware of an infidelity or adoption in the family, thus breaking the DNA chain and making a modern match impossible. (c) The blood stain occurred before Lewis's death but was unrelated to it and he died before having it cleaned.

Because there are so many possibilities and no other real evidence to support the wild ASSUMPTION that the murderer (if there was one) also injured himself and spilled blood on Lewis's apron (was he even wearing it?), it is not "equally" likely that the blood was the murderers'. More information is needed before declaring this likely.

wilbur
03/27/2013 4:21pm

Jason,
Perhaps we can get you a show debunking all of this crap. It isn't even entertaining to watch because Wolter uses the same techniques in every episode. I love it when he announces "I'm liking this" as he makes the flimsiest connections between some counterfeit artifact and one of his crack pot ideas. Let's see if Scifi is interested in a show for you.

Reply
04/18/2013 2:42pm

What bothered me the most was the fact that the DNA lab man explained that there was none of Meriwether Lewis' blood on the apron and the host just automatically jumped to the conclusion that Lewis was murdered. The DNA man even tried to explain how the blood could have gotten there and the host just ignored hime.

Reply
Andy McGill
04/21/2013 3:03am

Did I miss something? Lewis and Clark did not go through Kentucky, so why is this even an issue? And why would the Welsh be so far inland into Kentucky and not be on the coast?

I love a good conspiracy theory, but this one is not even close to being good.

Reply
Will Ritson
05/05/2013 11:27pm

Had Episode 9 on the DVR, had to peruse it once more for fun... to come back once more and verify for myself just how awful this blog is.

The show is littered with statements by Wolter that are clearly prefaced with lead-ins like:

"to me...."
"it could have been...."
"it was possible that...."

Almost everything he states begins in that fashion.

Essentially, all of the things said after that are HIS OPINION or BELIEF (true or not) and render this entire blog (and most of it's AU posts) pointless.

Still, it is fun to come here and see how many people get angry about stuff like this, and then resort to name calling and mud-slinging.

Jealousy is such an ugly thing, and that's all I can get from reading this blog and the comments.

Sorry folks - but Wolter has a TV show (and a 2nd season) and the rest of you are relegated to arguing about things HE believes in.

A sad bunch you are proving to be....

Reply
Christopher Randolph
05/06/2013 1:25am

All of us are stating opinions all of the time. What difference does, would or could it conceivably make if those begin with a statement that an opinion is on its way? You don't have a point there, you're playing a semantic game.

Also, to me you don't have a point, you're playing a semantic game.

Also, it could be that you don't have a point, you're playing a semantic game.

Also, it's possible that you don't have a point, you're playing a semantic game.

See how that works?

Do you have a TV show? If not, then, by your own logic, why should any of us listen to you?

Reply



Leave a Reply