Even I as an amateur, am aware there are sites out there, that don't fit with the "official" timeline of the human history. Whether or not the secrets hidden are relevant is besides the point, the point is that they are being hidden, so that the "story of the Earth" fits with whatever the academics want. […]
Scott (can't remember his last name right now to save my life) has been a good watch so far. He admits when he's entertained by ideas, but there's not enough evidence to support it being even plausible. He doesn't declare something ancient man made just to make ratings. An example would be the recent seasons episode on Rockwall Texas and their namesake. Which turned out to be an impressively rare geological phenomenon but it was still fascinating as to how the rock wall was formed.
I received a blog post this morning that conveys the details and analysis of an on-line radio interview with an individual who has been critical of me in the past. The poster's analysis is consistent with my opinion this individual's life is out of balance and they should not be taken seriously.
But consider this hypocrisy. Wolter admits that he did not listen to my interview before attacking me as unbalanced. He later writes that he doesn’t read my work at all yet somehow just knows that it doesn’t address the facts and is focused only on his character:
The reason I haven't mentioned the blog, and won't, is because I don't read it and have no plans to. I stated the reason for mentioning the blog in my post above and for me the matter is resolved.
As far as the other person goes, I don't know who he is and don't care. As I said in my blog post, the people who criticize me personally are welcome to their opinion. If they believe an argument will be won by attacking an individual and not addressing the facts, will likely be disappointed.
I'm not interested in personal attacks and debunkers; I'm interested in factual evidence, logic, and trying to figure out what historical truths they support. We know a large part of the current history that is taught is wrong and I'm trying to do whatever I can to set things straight.
For all of Wolter’s talk about “the facts,” his reactions are not appeals to logos but pathos—emotional appeals.
I find it interesting that of all the people I have written about—from Graham Hancock to Erich von Däniken to Giorgio Tsoukalos—only Scott Wolter has taken my critiques of his work so personally or angrily, or has accused me of being part of a conspiracy to oppose him, as Wolter did last year, or has called me made-up names like “hate-blogger” as he did earlier this year.
Let me quote Scott Wolter back to himself: “What is it about our show that makes you so angry? Perhaps it's fear that I might be right about the conclusions I reach in many of our investigations?” What is it about my reviews of Scott Wolter’s claims that makes him so angry?
I hope H2 is proud.