JASON COLAVITO
  • Home
  • Blog
  • Books
    • Jimmy: The Secret Life of James Dean >
      • Jimmy Excerpt
      • Jimmy in the Media
      • James Dean's Scrapbook
      • James Dean's Love Letters
      • The Amazing James Dean Hoax!
      • James Dean, The Human Ashtray
      • James Dean and Marlon Brando
      • The Curse of James Dean's Porsche
    • Legends of the Pyramids
    • The Mound Builder Myth
    • Jason and the Argonauts
    • Cult of Alien Gods >
      • Contents
      • Excerpt
      • Image Gallery
    • Foundations of Atlantis
    • Knowing Fear >
      • Contents
      • Excerpt
      • Image Gallery
    • Hideous Bit of Morbidity >
      • Contents
      • Excerpt
      • Image Gallery
    • Cthulhu in World Mythology >
      • Excerpt
      • Image Gallery
      • Necronomicon Fragments
      • Oral Histories
    • Fiction >
      • Short Stories
      • Free Fiction
    • JasonColavito.com Books >
      • Faking History
      • Unearthing the Truth
      • Critical Companion to Ancient Aliens
      • Studies in Ancient Astronautics (Series) >
        • Theosophy on Ancient Astronauts
        • Pyramidiots!
        • Edison's Conquest of Mars
      • Fiction Anthologies >
        • Unseen Horror >
          • Contents
          • Excerpt
        • Moon Men! >
          • Contents
      • The Orphic Argonautica >
        • Contents
        • Excerpt
      • The Faust Book >
        • Contents
        • Excerpt
      • Classic Reprints
      • eBook Minis
    • Free eBooks >
      • Origin of the Space Gods
      • Ancient Atom Bombs
      • Golden Fleeced
      • Ancient America
      • Horror & Science
  • Articles
    • Newsletter >
      • Volumes 1-10 Archive >
        • Volume 1 Archive
        • Volume 2 Archive
        • Volume 3 Archive
        • Volume 4 Archive
        • Volume 5 Archive
        • Volume 6 Archive
        • Volume 7 Archive
        • Volume 8 Archive
        • Volume 9 Archive
        • Volume 10 Archive
      • Volumes 11-20 Archive >
        • Volume 11 Archive
        • Volume 12 Archive
        • Volume 13 Archive
        • Volume 14 Archive
        • Volume 15 Archive
        • Volume 16 Archive
        • Volume 17 Archive
        • Volume 18 Archive
        • Volume 19 Archive
        • Volume 20 Archive
      • Volumes 21-30 Archive >
        • Volume 21 Archive
        • Volume 22 Archive
        • Volume 23 Archive
        • Volume 24 Archive
        • Volume 25 Archive
        • Volume 26 Archive
    • Television Reviews >
      • Ancient Aliens Reviews
      • In Search of Aliens Reviews
      • America Unearthed
      • Pirate Treasure of the Knights Templar
      • Search for the Lost Giants
      • Forbidden History Reviews
      • Expedition Unknown Reviews
      • Legends of the Lost
      • Unexplained + Unexplored
      • Rob Riggle: Global Investigator
      • Ancient Apocalypse
    • Book Reviews
    • Galleries >
      • Bad Archaeology
      • Ancient Civilizations >
        • Ancient Egypt
        • Ancient Greece
        • Ancient Near East
        • Ancient Americas
      • Supernatural History
      • Book Image Galleries
    • Videos
    • Collection: Ancient Alien Fraud >
      • Chariots of the Gods at 50
      • Secret History of Ancient Astronauts
      • Of Atlantis and Aliens
      • Aliens and Ancient Texts
      • Profiles in Ancient Astronautics >
        • Erich von Däniken
        • Robert Temple
        • Giorgio Tsoukalos
        • David Childress
      • Blunders in the Sky
      • The Case of the False Quotes
      • Alternative Authors' Quote Fraud
      • David Childress & the Aliens
      • Faking Ancient Art in Uzbekistan
      • Intimations of Persecution
      • Zecharia Sitchin's World
      • Jesus' Alien Ancestors?
      • Extraterrestrial Evolution?
    • Collection: Skeptic Magazine >
      • America Before Review
      • Native American Discovery of Europe
      • Interview: Scott Sigler
      • Golden Fleeced
      • Oh the Horror
      • Discovery of America
      • Supernatural Television
      • Review of Civilization One
      • Who Lost the Middle Ages
      • Charioteer of the Gods
    • Collection: Ancient History >
      • Prehistoric Nuclear War
      • The China Syndrome
      • Atlantis, Mu, and the Maya
      • Easter Island Exposed
      • Who Built the Sphinx?
      • Who Built the Great Pyramid?
      • Archaeological Cover Up?
    • Collection: The Lovecraft Legacy >
      • Pauwels, Bergier, and Lovecraft
      • Lovecraft in Bergier
      • Lovecraft and Scientology
    • Collection: UFOs >
      • Alien Abduction at the Outer Limits
      • Aliens and Anal Probes
      • Ultra-Terrestrials and UFOs
      • Rebels, Queers, and Aliens
    • Scholomance: The Devil's School
    • Prehistory of Chupacabra
    • The Templars, the Holy Grail, & Henry Sinclair
    • Magicians of the Gods Review
    • The Curse of the Pharaohs
    • The Antediluvian Pyramid Myth
    • Whitewashing American Prehistory
    • James Dean's Cursed Porsche
  • The Library
    • Ancient Mysteries >
      • Ancient Texts >
        • Mesopotamian Texts >
          • Eridu Genesis
          • Atrahasis Epic
          • Epic of Gilgamesh
          • Kutha Creation Legend
          • Babylonian Creation Myth
          • Descent of Ishtar
          • Resurrection of Marduk
          • Berossus
          • Comparison of Antediluvian Histories
        • Egyptian Texts >
          • The Shipwrecked Sailor
          • Dream Stela of Thutmose IV
          • The Papyrus of Ani
          • Classical Accounts of the Pyramids
          • Inventory Stela
          • Manetho
          • Eratosthenes' King List
          • The Story of Setna
          • Leon of Pella
          • Diodorus on Egyptian History
          • On Isis and Osiris
          • Famine Stela
          • Old Egyptian Chronicle
          • The Book of Sothis
          • Horapollo
          • Al-Maqrizi's King List
        • Teshub and the Dragon
        • Hermetica >
          • The Three Hermeses
          • Kore Kosmou
          • Corpus Hermeticum
          • The Asclepius
          • The Emerald Tablet
          • Hermetic Fragments
          • Prologue to the Kyranides
          • The Secret of Creation
          • Ancient Alphabets Explained
          • Prologue to Ibn Umayl's Silvery Water
          • Book of the 24 Philosophers
          • Aurora of the Philosophers
        • Hesiod's Theogony
        • Periplus of Hanno
        • Zoroastrian Fatal Winter
        • Ctesias' Indica
        • Sanchuniathon
        • Sima Qian
        • Syncellus's Enoch Fragments
        • The Book of Enoch
        • Slavonic Enoch
        • Sepher Yetzirah
        • Fragments of Artapanus
        • Tacitus' Germania
        • De Dea Syria
        • Aelian's Various Histories
        • Julius Africanus' Chronography
        • Fragments of Bruttius
        • Eusebius' Chronicle
        • Chinese Accounts of Rome
        • Ancient Chinese Automaton
        • The Orphic Argonautica
        • Fragments of Panodorus
        • Annianus on the Watchers
        • The Watchers and Antediluvian Wisdom
      • Medieval Texts >
        • Medieval Legends of Ancient Egypt >
          • Medieval Pyramid Lore
          • John Malalas on Ancient Egypt
          • Fragments of Abenephius
          • Akhbar al-zaman
          • Ibrahim ibn Wasif Shah
          • Murtada ibn al-‘Afif
          • Al-Maqrizi on the Pyramids
          • Al-Suyuti on the Pyramids
        • The Hunt for Noah's Ark
        • Byzantine World Chronicle
        • Isidore of Seville
        • Book of Liang: Fusang
        • Chronicle to 724
        • Agobard on Magonia
        • Pseudo-Diocles Fragmentum
        • Book of Thousands
        • Voyage of Saint Brendan
        • Power of Art and of Nature
        • Travels of Sir John Mandeville
        • Yazidi Revelation and Black Book
        • Al-Biruni on the Great Flood
        • Voyage of the Zeno Brothers
        • The Kensington Runestone (Hoax)
        • Islamic Discovery of America
        • Popol Vuh
        • The Aztec Creation Myth
      • Lost Civilizations >
        • Atlantis >
          • Plato's Atlantis Dialogues >
            • Timaeus
            • Critias
          • Fragments on Atlantis
          • Panchaea: The Other Atlantis
          • Eumalos on Atlantis (Hoax)
          • Gómara on Atlantis
          • Atlantis as Biblical History
          • Sardinia and Atlantis
          • Atlantis and Nimrod
          • Santorini and Atlantis
          • The Mound Builders and Atlantis
          • Donnelly's Atlantis
          • Atlantis in Morocco
          • Atlantis and Hanno's Periplus
          • Atlantis and the Sea Peoples
          • W. Scott-Elliot >
            • The Story of Atlantis
            • The Lost Lemuria
          • The Lost Atlantis
          • Atlantis in Africa
          • How I Found Atlantis (Hoax)
          • Termier on Atlantis
          • The Critias and Minoan Crete
          • Rebuttal to Termier
          • Further Responses to Termier
          • Flinders Petrie on Atlantis
          • Amazing New Light (Hoax)
        • Lost Cities >
          • Miscellaneous Lost Cities
          • The Seven Cities
          • The Lost City of Paititi
          • Manuscript 512
          • The Idolatrous City of Iximaya (Hoax)
          • The 1885 Moberly Lost City Hoax
          • The Elephants of Paredon (Hoax)
        • OOPARTs
        • Oronteus Finaeus Antarctica Map
        • Caucasians in Panama
        • Jefferson's Excavation
        • Fictitious Discoveries in America
        • Against Diffusionism
        • Tunnels Under Peru
        • The Parahyba Inscription (Hoax)
        • Mound Builders
        • Gunung Padang
        • Tales of Enchanted Islands
        • The 1907 Ancient World Map Hoax
        • The 1909 Grand Canyon Hoax
        • The Interglacial Period
        • Solving Oak Island
      • Religious Conspiracies >
        • Pantera, Father of Jesus?
        • Toledot Yeshu
        • Peter of les Vaux-de-Cernay on Cathars
        • Testimony of Jean de Châlons
        • Rosslyn Chapel and the 'Prentice's Pillar
        • The Many Wives of Jesus
        • Templar Infiltration of Labor
        • Louis Martin & the Holy Bloodline
        • The Life of St. Issa (Hoax)
        • On the Person of Jesus Christ
      • Giants in the Earth >
        • Fossil Origins of Myths >
          • Fossil Teeth and Bones of Elephants
          • Fossil Elephants
          • Fossil Bones of Teutobochus
          • Fossil Mammoths and Giants
          • Giants' Bones Dug Out of the Earth
          • Fossils and the Supernatural
          • Fossils, Myth, and Pseudo-History
          • Man During the Stone Age
          • Fossil Bones and Giants
          • Mastodon, Mammoth, and Man
          • American Elephant Myths
          • The Mammoth and the Flood
          • Fossils and Myth
          • Fossil Origin of the Cyclops
          • History of Paleontology
        • Fragments on Giants
        • Manichaean Book of Giants
        • Geoffrey on British Giants
        • Alfonso X's Hermetic History of Giants
        • Boccaccio and the Fossil 'Giant'
        • Book of Howth
        • Purchas His Pilgrimage
        • Edmond Temple's 1827 Giant Investigation
        • The Giants of Sardinia
        • Giants and the Sons of God
        • The Magnetism of Evil
        • Tertiary Giants
        • Smithsonian Giant Reports
        • Early American Giants
        • The Giant of Coahuila
        • Jewish Encyclopedia on Giants
        • Index of Giants
        • Newspaper Accounts of Giants
        • Lanier's A Book of Giants
      • Science and History >
        • Halley on Noah's Comet
        • The Newport Tower
        • Iron: The Stone from Heaven
        • Ararat and the Ark
        • Pyramid Facts and Fancies
        • Argonauts before Homer
        • The Deluge
        • Crown Prince Rudolf on the Pyramids
        • Old Mythology in New Apparel
        • Blavatsky on Dinosaurs
        • Teddy Roosevelt on Bigfoot
        • Devil Worship in France
        • Maspero's Review of Akhbar al-zaman
        • Arabic Names of Egyptian Kings
        • The Holy Grail as Lucifer's Crown Jewel
        • The Mutinous Sea
        • The Rock Wall of Rockwall
        • Fabulous Zoology
        • The Origins of Talos
        • Mexican Mythology
        • Chinese Pyramids
        • Maqrizi's Names of the Pharaohs
      • Extreme History >
        • Roman Empire Hoax
        • America Known to the Ancients
        • American Antiquities
        • American Cataclysms
        • England, the Remnant of Judah
        • Historical Chronology of the Mexicans
        • Maspero on the Predynastic Sphinx
        • Vestiges of the Mayas
        • Ragnarok: The Age of Fire and Gravel
        • Origins of the Egyptian People
        • The Secret Doctrine >
          • Volume 1: Cosmogenesis
          • Volume 2: Anthropogenesis
        • Phoenicians in America
        • The Electric Ark
        • Traces of European Influence
        • Prince Henry Sinclair
        • Pyramid Prophecies
        • Templars of Ancient Mexico
        • Chronology and the "Riddle of the Sphinx"
        • The Faith of Ancient Egypt
        • Remarkable Discoveries Within the Sphinx (Hoax)
        • Spirit of the Hour in Archaeology
        • Book of the Damned
        • Great Pyramid As Noah's Ark
        • The Shaver Mystery >
          • Lovecraft and the Deros
          • Richard Shaver's Proofs
    • Alien Encounters >
      • US Government Ancient Astronaut Files >
        • Fortean Society and Columbus
        • Inquiry into Shaver and Palmer
        • The Skyfort Document
        • Whirling Wheels
        • Denver Ancient Astronaut Lecture
        • Soviet Search for Lemuria
        • Visitors from Outer Space
        • Unidentified Flying Objects (Abstract)
        • "Flying Saucers"? They're a Myth
        • UFO Hypothesis Survival Questions
        • Air Force Academy UFO Textbook
        • The Condon Report on Ancient Astronauts
        • Atlantis Discovery Telegrams
        • Ancient Astronaut Society Telegram
        • Noah's Ark Cables
        • The Von Daniken Letter
        • CIA Psychic Probe of Ancient Mars
        • CIA Search for the Ark of the Covenant
        • Scott Wolter Lawsuit
        • UFOs in Ancient China
        • CIA Report on Noah's Ark
        • CIA Noah's Ark Memos
        • Congressional Ancient Aliens Testimony
        • Ancient Astronaut and Nibiru Email
        • Congressional Ancient Mars Hearing
        • House UFO Hearing
      • Ancient Extraterrestrials >
        • Premodern UFO Sightings
        • The Moon Hoax
        • Inhabitants of Other Planets
        • The Fall of the Sky
        • Blavatsky on Ancient Astronauts
        • The Stanzas of Dzyan (Hoax)
        • Aerolites and Religion
        • What Is Theosophy?
        • Plane of Ether
        • The Adepts from Venus
      • A Message from Mars
      • Saucer Mystery Solved?
      • Orville Wright on UFOs
      • Interdimensional Flying Saucers
      • Poltergeist UFOs
      • Flying Saucers Are Real
      • Report on UFOs
    • The Supernatural >
      • The Devils of Loudun
      • Sublime and Beautiful
      • Voltaire on Vampires
      • Demonology and Witchcraft
      • Thaumaturgia
      • Bulgarian Vampires
      • Religion and Evolution
      • Transylvanian Superstitions
      • Defining a Zombie
      • Dread of the Supernatural
      • Vampires
      • Werewolves and Vampires and Ghouls
      • Science and Fairy Stories
      • The Cursed Car
    • Classic Fiction >
      • Lucian's True History
      • Some Words with a Mummy
      • The Coming Race
      • King Solomon's Mines
      • An Inhabitant of Carcosa
      • The Xipéhuz
      • Lot No. 249
      • The Novel of the Black Seal
      • The Island of Doctor Moreau
      • Pharaoh's Curse
      • Edison's Conquest of Mars
      • The Lost Continent
      • Count Magnus
      • The Mysterious Stranger
      • The Wendigo
      • Sredni Vashtar
      • The Lost World
      • The Red One
      • H. P. Lovecraft >
        • Dagon
        • The Call of Cthulhu
        • History of the Necronomicon
        • At the Mountains of Madness
        • Lovecraft's Library in 1932
      • The Skeptical Poltergeist
      • The Corpse on the Grating
      • The Second Satellite
      • Queen of the Black Coast
      • A Martian Odyssey
    • Classic Genre Movies
    • Miscellaneous Documents >
      • The Balloon-Hoax
      • A Problem in Greek Ethics
      • The Migration of Symbols
      • The Gospel of Intensity
      • De Profundis
      • The Life and Death of Crown Prince Rudolf
      • The Bathtub Hoax
      • Crown Prince Rudolf's Letters
      • Position of Viking Women
      • Employment of Homosexuals
    • Free Classic Pseudohistory eBooks
  • About Jason
    • Biography
    • Jason in the Media
    • Contact Jason
    • About JasonColavito.com
    • Terms and Conditions
  • Search

Examining Scott Wolter and America Unearthed as the Product of a "Culture of Conspiracy"

4/2/2014

124 Comments

 
Yesterday I noted that I am reading Michael Barkun’s 2006 academic investigation of American conspiracy culture, A Culture of Conspiracy. Barkun offers some interesting insight into the development of conspiracy theories, and I was rather amused at how easily his outline for the defining traits of conspiracy culture also serve as the template for how an episode of America Unearthed (or, really, most cable TV pseudo-documentaries) is put together. I thought it might be amusing to present Barkun’s breakdown of the beliefs of conspiracy culture practitioners and compare them to the presentation of Scott Wolter’s beliefs in his books and on America Unearthed.
Interestingly, Barkun’s conspiracy outline applies less perfectly to Ancient Aliens since that program moved further toward what Barkun sees as an eclectic form of New Age religion. It shares some of the same traits, but the emphasis on cover-ups and suppression of truth is secondary to the promise of spiritual revelation at the hands of enlightened proponents of the doctrine, taking the ancient astronaut theory beyond its conspiracy origins more toward the form of a New Age cult.

Barkun begins by defining what he means by a conspiracy: “the belief that an organization made up of individuals or groups was or is acting covertly to achieve some malevolent end.” This implies a world where human relations and historical events are “governed by design rather than randomness.” This is an easy one: Scott Wolter attributes most historical events to the machinations of an eternal cult of goddess worshipers who manifest as the “proto-Templars,” Knights Templar, and Freemasons. Where he differs slightly is that he attributes to these groups a confusing and incoherent agenda that simultaneously creates the conditions for human freedom by founding the United States in the name of religious freedom but is also responsible for innumerable evils, including the suppression of truth and enforced ignorance of the divine.

Next, Barkun outlines three related elements on conspiracy belief that form subsets of the conspiracy theorist’s argument from design. Each of these also manifests in America Unearthed.

  • First, there is the belief that “nothing happens by accident.” Events occur because of the machinations of a conspiracy, and randomness and coincidence are seen as unlikely or impossible. In Scott Wolter’s world, successive waves of Old World travelers to America came as a result of a concerted effort born of millennia-old knowledge of the New World and a consistent agenda of colonization stretching from the Solutrean period to the Freemasons.
  • Second, there is the belief that “nothing is as it seems.” Conspirators disguise themselves and hide their agenda. For Scott Wolter, this manifests, famously, in his belief that the Kensington Rune Stone, which on its surface tells of the travels of Norse people in Minnesota, is covering a hidden agenda discussed in a hidden-letter dot code—a land claim by the Knights Templar to the Mississippi watershed. Elsewhere, he sees the work of this same conspiracy in every appearance of the so-called “Hooked X®” and M-shaped hand gestures, which give a conspiratorial twist to otherwise unrelated people, places, and things.
  • Third, there is the belief that “everything is connected.” Because randomness is impossible, behind the façade of history is a hidden set of connections. This manifests most famously in the “Hooked X®,” which he believes serves as a hidden signifier connecting people across time and space, from the followers of Jesus in the first century to the Knights Templar and the Freemasons. In incorporating claims about the so-called “white Indians” of Darian in Panama as Viking/Templar descendants, Native American religions as derived from Old World antecedents, and the Solutreans as the first Americans, Wolter essentially creates a web of connections dating back 20,000 years, carrying his goddess-worshiping cult from the Stone Age to the Internet Age.

This much was probably obvious to most readers long ago. But the next section, on the empirical validity of conspiracies is one of the most surprising to me, for it outlines precisely how America Unearthed follows the structure of a conspiracy.

First, conspiracy theories “claim to be testable by the accumulation of evidence about the observable world.” Each episode of America Unearthed purports to focus on a specific artifact whose observable traits contribute to the accumulation of evidence for an “alternative” view of history; several episodes present previous results as supportive of future claims. “Those who subscribe to such constructs do not ask that the constructs be taken on faith. Instead, they often engage in elaborate presentations of evidence in order to substantiate their claims.” Here, Scott Wolter engages in elaborate presentations of alleged geological evidence—though, typically, little more than superficial observation—coupled with fragments of historical narratives and unusual interpretations of art. Each episode also promotes one of Wolter’s books, which purport to provide more detailed evidence for his claims, though the actual sources are often other fringe authors.

Barkun quotes Richard Hofstader’s famous essay on the “Paranoid Style in American Politics” to the effect that conspiracy theorists’ literature (and TV shows) both (a) ape the conventions of mainstream scholarship and (b) “lead to heroic strivings for ‘evidence.’” As an author, Wolter uses the form of an academic article and the convention of end notes, but without the academic substance of either, as mentioned with the aforementioned poor quality sources. There is also a notably lack of primary sources. As a geologist, Wolter often uses his position to suggest that his findings, no matter how untethered from the scientific method, meet the standards of mainstream science by appealing to his scientific training and to his own unique interpretation of peer review, which for him does not involve publishing in academic journals but rather the process by which fellow geologists sign off on geological reports. As a warrior against the conspiracy, both Wolter and the producers of America Unearthed present him as a “hero” for exposing the “truth,” going so far as to liken him in publicity materials to heroes of film such as Indiana Jones.

Barkun next explains that conspiracy theorists see the reduction of the complexity of life to a single cause as analogous to Occam’s Razor or the scientific method’s preference for parsimonious explanations. Wolter frequently describes his claims as the most logical or simplest explanation for anomalous artifacts or ambiguous mythologies since he requires only one explanation—the goddess-worshiping Templar cult complex—to understand dozens of cultures across thousands of miles of territory.

According to Barkun, conspiracy theorists believe that the conspiracy is vast enough and powerful enough that it can control all channels of knowledge and prevent the public from discovering its operations. Scott Wolter complains time and again against the power wielded by “academics” to control the textbooks. He also believes that the Smithsonian Institution is capable of suppressing vast amounts of data about pre-Columbian contact with the Old World, not to mention his belief that the United States government (in the form of the National Park Service and the National Forest Service) are actively using federal power to suppress the truth. As a result of efforts by these groups as well as the Freemasons and the all-powerful Catholic Church, nearly every scrap of evidence has vanished into hidden vaults and caves. Barkun says that conspiracy theorists see skeptics as having been fooled by false evidence planted by the conspiracy or are a part of the conspiracy themselves. Wolter has accused me of being in league with his enemies, of purposely publishing false information to discredit him, and of being fooled by mainstream scholars and thus unable to see the correctness of his beliefs.

“The problem that remains for believers,” Barkun writes, “is to explain why they themselves have not succumbed to the deceptions, why they have detected a truth invisible to others.” He says that there are two primary stratagems believers use, and Scott Wolter uses them both.

1. Claim access to authentic evidence that escaped the conspiracy. Wolter claims to investigate just such anomalies, viewing them as being suppressed even when they are, as with the Bat Creek Stone, owned by the supposed conspirators and on public display. Otherwise, the pieces of “evidence” Wolter “investigates” tends to be found in the possession of other conspiracy theorists, jealously and zealously kept from government and “academics,” whom they fear will repossess and suppress it—as actually happened with the obsidian spear point in Hawaii.

2. Distance oneself ostentatiously from hated mainstream elites. Wolter’s posturing against academia marks him as an outsider and truth-teller. Just yesterday, Wolter wrote on his blog: “The academic process is horribly flawed in the Humanities disciplines which includes Archaeology. One of the reasons is they don't receive formal training in the scientific method, and it shows.” Even though this is untrue (it was foundational to my own archaeology course work) and Wolter has no direct knowledge of archaeology curricula, it marks Wolter as separate, as the “true” scientist.

Barkun then describes two remaining characteristics of the conspiracy style: paranoia and millennialism. Paranoia refers not necessarily to clinical paranoia but rather to the belief that a conspiracy is tangibly directed against the values, security, or way of life of the theorist and also countless others. Wolter frequently refers to his belief that the forces of the conspiracy are directed personally against him (the Park Service, the Forest Service, “academics,” etc.) to stop his work and deny him access to special artifacts or sites, as well as against those who side with him in advocating fringe theories.

In terms of millennialism, Wolter does not usually discuss this on America Unearthed, but in his books and in his radio interviews he makes frequent mention of his belief that an ecological and/or social catastrophe is impending and that the revelation of the “truth” about goddess worship and the real history of Jesus can somehow help to avert the calamity by setting humanity on the path toward responsible environmental stewardship and true equality. In Akhenaten to the Founding Fathers (2013), Wolter declares America the “New Jerusalem” of Revelation 21 and further asserts his millenarian belief that the cycle of zodiac is about to inaugurate the Age of Aquarius in which revelation of the truth about Mary Magdalene will usher in a dramatic restructuring of human belief systems and full equality for women: “One thing is certain, if we humans as a species are going to make it on this planet, some things have got to change. […] I am confident the New Age of Aquarius will inspire that positive change we have all been looking for” (266). His extended discussion of the peace and prosperity to come in the Aquarian Age (265-266) is almost exactly parallel to the Millennium of apocalyptic Christian belief (Rev. 20:1-6).

The astonishing thing is that Barkun’s theoretical template for analyzing conspiracy theories maps so perfectly onto the work of Scott Wolter. It has predictive value, and by applying the theoretical framework, we can predict how Scott Wolter and/or America Unearthed will approach any given piece of evidence and fit it into his/their conspiratorial worldview. This seems like a useful tool to keep in mind for future use.

124 Comments
Only Me
4/2/2014 07:40:16 am

As Spock would say, "Fascinating."

Now we await to hear from Phil and Steve. This should be interesting.

Reply
Steve StC
4/2/2014 03:44:58 pm

Ah, Jason's steady drumbeat that SW and others should be "publishing in academic journals".

Allow me to entertain your audience of wanna-be academics with a story of an academic (whom you are required to admire because he had huge academic credentials). He clearly he knew his way around academic circles. Enough so that he knew he had to hide his research from his fellow academics.

Why?

Because he was certain they would abuse him the way they abused Helge Ingestad and anyone else who dared venture out of the accepted paradigm.

About the time Helge Ingstad was finding L'Ance aux Meadows, Jørgen Meldgaard, archaeologist at the Danish National Museum, had to lie to his academic sponsors. He acted interested only in native research in North America, yet his real goal was to look for Norse evidence of pre-Columbian exploration there. (see page 10 and others in the PDF linked below). He had a hunch and wanted to follow it. The only way he could, and still maintain his income from the university (his fellow academics), was to lie.

http://nordligeverdener.natmus.dk/fileadmin/user_upload/temasites/nordlige_verdener/nordlige_verdener/meldgaard/Meldgaards_vinland_vision.pdf

My god, he even carried a copy of the Icelandic Vinland Sagas on his trip!! They would have drummed him out of academia for reading that book.

Jason (and acolytes), I think it's time you admit that your much-vaunted process of academic peer review is flawed and purposefully attempts to stop exploration that disagrees with the academia-accepted paradigms. Stop insisting the rest of the world get in line to have their work peer-reviewed by people who are trying to kill exploration.

Reply
Rev. Phil Gotsch
4/2/2014 04:48:17 pm

I don't care much for "conspiracy theories," no matter who puts them forward …

BUT … As a SERIOUS student of North American history and pre-history, I DO know firsthand that SOME in "the Establishment" CAN be -- HAVE been -- FAR inordinately closed-minded …

Again, I'll just say the Magic Words -- "Clovis FIRST" ...

Jason Colavito link
4/2/2014 11:45:06 pm

Did you read the same book I did? Jørgen Meldgaard was (a) an archeologist, (b) following previous academic investigators who identified the same landmarks, (c) drew on a century-old academic tradition investigating the sagas as historical documents, and (d) was celebrated by his countrymen for his work. His "lie" as you call it was to a government-funded organization, the Rask-Ørsted Foundation, and even then he said he'd be investigating the sagas as a secondary aim. The conspiracy, therefore, wasn't academic but rather on the part of unimaginative bureaucrats, who, if you checked their output, devoted significant resources to the study of indigenous people, particularly in the Arctic and sub-Arctic regions. What a shock--someone who wanted money asked for cash for something people were giving money for. That's not much of a conspiracy and no smoking gun.

Steve StC
4/3/2014 01:19:52 am

Jason, from your comment, it appears you didn't read the PDF I mentioned. Read page 10.

"What a shock--someone who wanted money asked for cash for something people were giving money for."

Not my point at all. My point was based on the PDF written by Meldgaard's followers which made it very clear he was operating on an agenda he felt he had to keep secret from those who wanted to maintain their precious paradigm.

Jason Colavito link
4/3/2014 01:24:37 am

Steve, page 10 says that "the application emphasized that archaeological investigations of Inuit and Native North American sites were to be the focus of his survey, whereas secondary investigations of the Norse pioneers would merely be opportunistic." He didn't hide anything but changed the emphasis to meet the organization's biases. It goes on to say that he did so because the people who give funds accepted applications likely to produce tangible results, and they knew that the Inuit existed.

Bottom line: He told them he planned to search for Vikings. He didn't omit or hide the fact.

RLewis
4/3/2014 03:50:35 am

Well, since Jørgen Meldgaard was an archaeologist, and we know their processes are “horribly flawed” because “they don't receive formal training in the scientific method”, I guess we should just ignore all of the supposed “evidence” that he presented concerning Norse occupation at L'Ance aux Meadows. Probably just some old Eskimo camp.

Steve StC
4/3/2014 11:16:44 am

Jason, I can only think you are counting on your audience to be to stupid or lazy to go to the link I provided. I think you are either (a) bending the truth, (b) didn't read the full page or, more likely, © are cherry picking the parts of a very short page ten which support your view of the story. My guess? Openly telling a lie. Proof below, all from page ten. It's not open to interpretation, Jason. It's right out there on page 10 for all your acolytes to read and form their own conclusions.

From Page 10

"When Meldgaard applied to the Rask-Orsted Foundation for 16,000 Danish kroner (c. 2270 CAD) to fund his one-man Vineland journey in 1955, the application emphasized that archaeological investigations of Inuit and Native North American sites were to be the focus of his survey, whereas secondary investigations of the Norse pioneers would merely be opportunistic. The wording of this application was probably partly due to Meldgaard's general interest in the development of inuit and Native North American cultures, which could assist in identifying arrowheads of the type found at Sandnes.

HOWEVER, IT CAN BE SEEN FROM HIS PREPARATIONS AND LETTERS LEADING UP TO THE VINELAND JOURNEY, THAT HIS PRIMARY OBJECTIVE WAS ACTUALLY TO INVESTIGATE THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE SAGAS [which were roundly hated by the academics]. DOWNPLAYING THIS GOAL IN HIS APPLICATION probably reflects the nature of funding personal research; HE HAD TO ASSURE THE FOUNDATION THAT HIS PROJECT WAS SOMETHING MORE THAN THE PURSUIT OF THE MYTHICAL VINLAND, and that he would bring home original and tangible results such as artifacts, excavation plans, photos, and new discoveries." [caps are my own for emphasis]

Jason seems to have neglected to report this to his readers. Jason, are you counting on your acolytes not checking sources and taking you as their only source? Why would you leave this information out? There is only one way to read it. Meldgaard was forced to lie to his sponsors (academia / government, all the same in that country at that time and more so now) in order to do the research that he believed would prove the Norse were in North America long before Columbus. He knew academia and the establishment would not support any research that might change their cherished paradigm.

Then there's this that your hero Jason neglected to report, still from page 10 -

IT IS CLEAR FROM MELDGAARD'S 1956 VINLAND DIARY AND PHOTOGRAPHS, THAT DESPITE THE OFFICALLY STATED FOCUS ON INUIT AND NATIVE NORTH AMERICAN ARCHAEOLOGY, HIS ACTUAL ASPIRATION WAS, IN FACT, THE OPPOSITE; it is evident that he wished to follow directly in the wake, so to speak, of the Viking explorers. Although Meldgaard did succeed in finding several new Inuit and Native American sites, and even did a few trial excavations, the discussion of these in his diary is taciturn. This is especially striking when compared with the thoroughness and enthusiasm evident in his documentation of the Norse voyages."

Also, in that PDF, they show a Ramah-chert arrowhead found in 1930 at the edge of the Sandnes churchyard. Meldgaard later proved that it was made in North America, the first tangible evidence of the Viking journeys to Vinland.

That link again, for any who follow Jason who might want to do their own research -
http://nordligeverdener.natmus.dk/fileadmin/user_upload/temasites/nordlige_verdener/nordlige_verdener/meldgaard/Meldgaards_vinland_vision.pdf

Steve StC
4/3/2014 11:26:37 am

In case my point is not clear enough for you, Jason -

You continuously moan that fringe folks like SW and others don't follow peer review like academics. Here, I have provided you with a report on an academic who knew he, too, had to break the cherished rules of academia in order to pursue an idea in the field which he knew they would neither support, nor fund. He simply would not have been able to go into the field had he been open about his true intentions.

Jason Colavito link
4/3/2014 11:27:50 am

OK, so you add your own line that the "academics" hated the sagas, which is not in the original and which directly contradicts the earlier sections of the PDF which outline how Meldgaard was building on earlier academic work on those same sagas and then expect me and my readers to accept your interpolation as fact?

You also quoted the exact section where it states that he told them that he planned to study the Vikings, though as a secondary focus. You are blowing up an attempt to wring funding from a foundation into an academic conspiracy, and you're adding things not there to build a case you can't support with facts.

Jason Colavito link
4/3/2014 11:31:04 am

Steve, you do understand that the foundation isn't an academic gatekeeper. It's a funding organization of the Danish government. Academics write grants day in and day out and have to persuade foundations to give them money. This is, sadly, exactly how academia works. Meldgaard's university didn't try to stop him, nor did his colleagues try to suppress his work. The only question is where to get the money--because at the time his wasn't the type of work that could easily be monetized (and still isn't).

The whole issue was who would pay for him to walk across Canada, not whether it was "allowed." That's not a conspiracy; that's a funding issue.

Steve Stc
4/3/2014 01:12:58 pm

Do you deny that the story I posted here says very clearly that Meldgaard "HAD TO ASSURE THE FOUNDATION THAT HIS PROJECT WAS SOMETHING MORE THAN THE PURSUIT OF THE MYTHICAL VINLAND…" and other points along those lines?

Here's what I understand about foundations: If "academics write grants day in and day out and have to persuade foundations to give them money" then they must therefore adhere to the beliefs of the funding organization; in this case the foundation. I can make a compelling case that the beliefs of foundations associated with and funding academia share the same restrictive ideas and rules as traditional academia - specifically, they're both against what they and you would categorize as "fringe" research. One must remember where one's bread is buttered.

In the same comment you wrote, "that the foundation isn't an academic gatekeeper…" and "Academics write grants day in and day out and have to persuade foundations to give them money." You meant to say "grant proposals" or "requests for grants". Those two statements are in direct opposition to one another. If you want my grant money, then I'm the gatekeeper.

The result is that academics who are open-minded to new ideas either keep their mouths shut and tow the party line, or they find crafty ways to get their pet projects done. Meldgaard chose the later because it was the only way for him to progress in an area that was later proven valid.

Jason Colavito link
4/3/2014 01:28:12 pm

So what are you arguing, Steve? That foundations give money to research they think will yield results? Well, that's obvious. If you're arguing that the funding system for research is broken, you will find no argument here. But is that a conspiracy by all of academia? Obviously not, as Meldgaard and his predecessors demonstrate.

But you started with a specific claim. that Meldgaard lied and kept his research interests hidden, and this was not true; he underplayed them, yes, but told the Foundation about them, You also said that academics hated the sagas, and that claim is proved untrue by the preceding century of scholarship which near universally accepted them as founded in fact. As I have pointed out more than once, it was literally in high school textbooks of the era that the sagas proved Leif Erikson had reached America.

As always, you retreat from the original claim and then argue that somehow I am unfair in having evaluated it.

Steve St
4/3/2014 01:29:00 pm

Bogus science paper reveals peer review's flaws
http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/bogus-science-paper-reveals-peer-review-s-flaws-1.2054004

Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals
http://jrs.sagepub.com/content/99/4/178.full

Open access is not the problem – my take on Science’s peer review “sting”
http://blogs.berkeley.edu/2013/10/04/open-access-is-not-the-problem

Problems with Peer-Review: A Brief Summary
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/02/problems_with_p056241.html

Jason Colavito link
4/3/2014 01:34:25 pm

I really don't understand what you're arguing, Steve. Grant proposals aren't peer review, so how does Meldgaard's grant application have anything to do with the problems of peer review?

Mandalore
4/3/2014 04:05:05 pm

Melgaard's downplaying an angle of his research in order to get funding is completely normal in the grant process. Foundations fund things in their interests so scholars cater the way they present their work in order to get some money. Once funding is given, the outcome depends on the research. There isn't any conspiracy there, just reality.

As Jason pointed out, the sagas were well studied by many scholars and some held them in high regard. That they were rejected is a myth just like the erroneous idea that Troy was beleived to be a myth until Schliemann discovered it. (Frank Calvert anyone?)

Steve StC
4/3/2014 06:33:24 pm

Let me see if I can spoon feed this to you, Jason:

1.
You said that SW has "his own unique interpretation of peer review, which for him does not involve publishing in academic journals." You wrote that above. It is one of the constant refrains you consider most damning of "fringe" researchers, especially Scott.

2.
I provided you and your acolytes with the story of Jørgen Meldgaard, an academic and therefore worthy of your absolute praise and adoration. Meldgaard lived in the world you and the other wanna-be academics wish you could inhabit, the world of peer review by fellow academics.

3.
I shared the PDF which spent a good amount of ink on the fact that Meldgaard knew he had to hide his true intentions of his planned trip from his academic-peer-review peers / government sponsors. His actual intention was to focus almost exclusively on finding evidence of Norse journeys to North America.

4.
Why was such a topic frowned upon by his academic-peer-review world? Simple, because the academic-peer-review world does not want such research conducted. Otherwise, why would Meldgaard feel it necessary to hide his true intentions??

5.
IT IS CLEAR FROM MELDGAARD'S 1956 VINLAND DIARY AND PHOTOGRAPHS, THAT DESPITE THE OFFICALLY STATED FOCUS ON INUIT AND NATIVE NORTH AMERICAN ARCHAEOLOGY, HIS ACTUAL ASPIRATION WAS, IN FACT, THE OPPOSITE.

Jason, when you are done squirming, can you please address point #5 ??

Specifically, (a) is it common and accepted among the Academic-Peer-Review world (which you so admire) to present a request for money and then pursue something entirely different? And, if so, (b) what does that say about your much vaunted Academic-Peer-Review world that you insist SW and others participate in?

Before you do any more squirming, can you please address the questions above? Just this once?

Harry
4/4/2014 12:45:07 am

Steve,

Your point 5 is irrelevant and no reason for Jason to squirm because points 3 and 4 are wrong. You are deliberately conflating (i.e., combining into one) two different groups (Meldgaard's academic peers, i.e., other archaeologists, as opposed to a funding organization) and two different processes (peer review as opposed to the grant process). Peer review, as academics understand it, is the process of submitting scientific papers to the critique of experts in the field to ensure that the paper does not have any serious flaws before it is published. The grant process is a means of raising money for research that is not necessarily related to peer review; it is more likely to be, and was in this case, related to the interests of government and nonprofit bureaucrats who provide the funding.

Having conflated these two different groups and processes, you then ascribe the actions of the funders to the academic peers, in order to make an undeserved complaint about the peers and peer review. And you do this knowing that Jason was only advocating peer review and even after he agreed that the funding process is flawed.

Here is what it is like to conflate two different groups and then blame one group for the actions/beliefs of the other: Why do you Templars in America/Ancient Alien advocates insist that all pagan myths reflect real events involving aliens? When you are finished squirming, please justify your belief in the accuracy of pagan myth.

RLewis
4/4/2014 07:23:24 am

Concerning the four example articles which you presented against peer review:
- One was posted by a Creationist website. Since their "evidence" will never stand up to any scrutinized review, they are obviously biased against all scientific methods in general.
- Two articles speak out against subscription-based publications (that charge for reading each article) and how they have ulterior motives to publish as many articles as possible regardless of their scientific value.
-One article claims that reviewers (peers) are too inconsistent and poorly trained.

In general (except for the Creationist item), these claim that it is often TOO EASY to get an article peer-reviewed. It seems that SW would want to quickly jump on this bandwagon and submit his research (before the Academia gets around to fixing the process)

Jason Colavito link
4/4/2014 01:41:32 pm

I agree entirely with the points Harry made. Peer review is for judging results, while grant proposals are for seeking funding. You don't need a grant to unlock peer review, so conflating them is purposely misleading. Besides, my point above in the original blog post wasn't to demand Scott Wolter submit to peer review but to note that Wolter's treatment of peer review, an academic norm no matter what you think of it, matches the predicted results from Barkun's model of how conspiracy theorists approach academia, simultaneously vilifying it but aping its language and seeking its prestige.

Steve StC
4/2/2014 05:17:03 pm

There you have it, "Only Me:" As predicted, both Steve and Phil have posted. We await your snarky comment.

Said snarky comment might be more interesting if you read the PDF I posted a link to first.

Reply
Only Me
4/2/2014 06:28:47 pm

You presume too much, Steve.

If you read my comment again, I took a neutral position. Barkun is not the first, nor the last, to propose a set of guidelines to define a conspiracy theory or the mindset behind those that believe in one. In the article (Jason's opinion), he makes the argument that Scott fits Barkun's guidelines. I neither voiced support for, or against, his opinion. I found the argument fascinating, that's all.

I said "we", as in all who will read these comments, were waiting to hear from you and Phil. Given the content in past comments from both of you, that's why I also said it should be interesting.

It's really a shame that I looked forward to reading what you had to say, but I'm seeing the same angry "Tora! Tora! Tora!" attitude that has been shown before.

I don't know why you think I would automatically fire back with a snarky comment, but as I said at the beginning, you presume too much.

Walt
4/3/2014 12:19:39 am

Only Me, Steve presumes too much?!? You're the same person who "wrote off" The Universe: Ancient Mysteries Solved before the first episode ever aired just because Jason read the press release through his biased lens and saw it as a show about the megalithic yard. I knew Jason made no sense whatsoever that day, but like a zombie cult member, you "wrote off" the show.

At least Steve thinks for himself and doesn't share a brain with someone else, or blindly follow his "leader". You remind me of a member of the Manson family member or of Jim Jones' church. It's tough to respect someone who never expresses an idea of her own.

Jason Colavito link
4/3/2014 12:22:54 am

You do know, Walt, that the press release actually said that the show would try to link ancient cultures through the megalithic yard. Fortunately, that was not the case, but that wasn't me being biased; it was H2 putting out bad information.

Also: Your comparisons to cults are out of line with my comments policy and I enjoin you to refrain from additional comments of that nature.

Walt
4/3/2014 04:17:27 am

The line you're referencing said nothing of the sort. It was a throw-away line probably written by someone in marketing that you misinterpreted based on your beliefs about the quality of H2 programming and the megalithic yard. After reading the same press release, I wasn't under the impression the show would address the megalithic yard. You incorrectly interpreted the evidence and misled your readers just as you lambaste Wolter for doing.

I don't mind you or Wolter being wrong, but I do my own thinking.

Jason Colavito link
4/3/2014 04:28:23 am

Throwaway line? It was the entire text: "How were ancient builders, including those at Stonehenge, able to create structures around the world with one consistent unit of measurement – the “megalithic yard” – despite being oceans apart? This miniseries uses experts and CGI to reveal the answer and demonstrate how our past is connected to the history of the universe." There isn't much ambiguity there. I reported exactly what they said, and they were wrong.

Walt
4/3/2014 05:41:02 am

Theoretically, you and they could still be right. Maybe the last episode will ask how primitive people could've done it all and attempt to tie previous episodes together using the megalithic yard.

But that's not the only anomaly in the release. It also calls it a miniseries while History's episode guide and advertising just call it season 8 of "The Universe".

Jason Colavito link
4/3/2014 05:49:10 am

On-air they also referred to it as a miniseries, though it is also officially season 8. I guess they were referring to it as a themed event.

Only Me
4/3/2014 10:13:26 am

Yes, Walt, I expressed disinterest in TU:AMS because of the press release. The megalithic yard is bunk. However, I've watched the series since the beginning and enjoyed it.

As to the rest of your verbal vomit, thanks for the laughs. You've served the purpose of entertaining me.

BillUSA
4/6/2014 11:43:24 am

Steve StC -

Do you comprehend (much less read) any of the posts you respond to without the kaleidoscopic treatment you apply to anything else you see, hear or read?

It's almost painfully obvious that you don't get the point that peer review and research funding are two separate things. Do you just ignore the obvious in order to get a point across that a) you can't accept as flawed, or; b) don't completely understand in it's entirety? Or are you doing it to save face?

All at once you claim the academic establishment has exercised acute powers of suppression in order to advance an agenda of deception for nefarious purposes we'll never be able to figure out for ourselves, yet poor little old you, Scott Wolter, and any other fringe theorist - with very little funding behind you by comparison - are going to be able to provide proof that everything we know has been a lie.

I especially like how you (again, all at once) attempt to debunk critical thinkers by providing links to publications of other fringe theorists yet ubiquitously belabor excerpts of sentences at the cost of the point of the critical thinker's paragraph.

I'm not carrying the banner for Jason Colavito. I do, however, don't appreciate your assumption that any of his readers are duped by intellectual indoctrination that you seem to somehow be able to detect.

Like I stated in another post, you can escape criticism by providing proof. Not fringe proof, but academic proof. Nobody is trying to stop you and your like from advancing any theory into the mainstream. You are. In rejecting the system by which every respected scientist has made a contribution to our greater understanding you think you have convenience yourself with the ability to cry conspiracy to suppress. Well, that might work with the fringe crowd, but it doesn't hold water here.

When a program like AU is presented as entertainment while claiming to be scientific, it becomes no more than a lie. Now THAT is deception.

CFC
4/6/2014 01:58:40 pm

You did a great job of breaking down the elements of AU using this template Jason. This will be a useful tool to share with college students and other audiences to help identify the tactics and techniques conspiracy theorists and con artists use to mislead their viewers / followers. I passed it along to some professionals and college instructors that I know. Well done as always.

Reply
RLewis
4/2/2014 08:02:32 am

I see SW is trying to get Ohman Farm designated as a Historical Site. I guess if it's an historical site then the assumption must be that the KRS is of historical importance..

Reply
Jason Colavito link
4/2/2014 08:04:30 am

The Cardiff Giant is historically important as well, but not as proof of giants.

Reply
Mike Titus pullo
4/2/2014 11:20:23 am

Hey I saw the Cardiff giant at the museum in Cooperstown when I was a kid. Was it the farmers museum? I can't recall. It was an old country village type of museum like Sturbridge village. My dad and a took a day trip to Cooperstown from Rochester. He just passed array at 91 last month. Thanks jason it brought back a good memory.

Jason Colavito link
4/2/2014 11:30:06 am

I'm so sorry for your loss.

It was indeed the Farmers' Museum, where it is still on display. I remember making my father take me to see it when he dragged me to the Baseball Hall of Fame.

charlie
4/2/2014 08:10:59 am

A question only semi-related to this topic.
How arrogant/stupid (they seem to go together often) does one need to be to "claim" a territory for some group/king/etc. when there are people already living there? I wonder about any supposed "claims" by the Templar gang to the Mississippi water shed. The Mississippian culture was there when these clowns supposedly staked that "claim". Also, just how valid was any such claim by old Columbus to lands that already were occupied? To my thinking, that is the height of arrogance/stupidity. Of course, the European mind set, then and now, much like that of the US gummint for decades, has been the old "might makes right". I call BS on it all.
None of them had any right to any such claims.
Jason, thanks for the notice of another book I need to get.

Reply
Varika
4/2/2014 02:30:20 pm

I agree that what Europeans did when they came to the US wasn't precisely what we would call ethical these days, but I WOULD point out that it's not like Europeans were the only ones doing it. The Iroquois Confederacy was not a complacent neighbor, and the Aztecs were a not well-loved empire, for example. Not to mention what China did in Asia, and while I can't remember details now, a couple different empires in Africa, both north and south. Let's talk about the fact that Powhatan was having some pretty tense relations with his neighbors even BEFORE Europeans showed up. ...it is as racist to assume that ONLY Europeans can be dicks as it is to assume that Native Americans were incapable of piling dirt on top of dirt. Just saying.

What we are running into, though, is a difference between "squatter's rights" and "land claims." Columbus-era claims wind up holding up today basically because Europeans came and stayed. The Roanoke claim, for instance, lapsed because there were no colonists left. (Which is what happens when you piss off your neighbors and they decide to end your squatter's rights.) Columbus founded a town that grew into a city that still exists today, so there's a continuity there.

The alleged "land claims" by Templars/Vikings in the Mississippian watershed area are not valid for the simple fact that there is no population of the claimants standing up and saying, "It's ours, we've been here this whole time." What you have are the local indigenous peoples, who are NOT stepping up and saying, "Oh, yeah, we used to be Vikings/Templars/space aliens," which invalidates any defensible land claim, even if you assume the purported markers are legit. There are no "squatter's rights" to lead to the tangled morass that squatter's rights vs. paper ownership inevitably becomes in courts. Those claims would be meaningless even if true, and thus NOT the bombshell conspiracy theorists would have you believe.

Reply
KIF
4/2/2014 01:08:44 pm

They're just all plain old-fashioned fibbers because they want to turn wishful-thinking into historical fact. Nothing technical.

Reply
Bob link
4/2/2014 03:20:02 pm

Welcome to the inner circle, Jason. Prof. Barkun will teach you the secret handshake. Your new name, which you must never speak, is Pantagruel. Now, if you'll step over into the vestibule, we'll size you for your robes.

Reply
Tara Jordan link
4/2/2014 05:56:08 pm

"a world where human relations and historical events are governed by design rather than randomness."
As a professor emeritus of political science,Michael Barkun should know,that this is the perfect definition of the political process.

Jason,correct me if I am wrong,because I haven't read the book.Is Michael Barkun trying to entertain the notion that there is no such thing as"conspiracy"?.
If he does,this is a blatant demonstration of his academic intellectual dishonesty,or his ignorance.I think what we have here,is a semantical & dialectical argument.Academics,scholars and communication experts call it political intrigues/shenanigans and geopolitical/geostrategic agendas,others use the word conspiracies.

Honestly,Jason,in your effort to discredit the notion of conspiracy,using Scott Wolter`s "machinations of an eternal cult of goddess worshipers who manifest as the “proto-Templars,”Knights Templar,and Freemasons...." was not the smartest thing to do.I think you know better.Again correct me if I got it wrong.

Because arguing about conspiracies is entertaining as watching paint dry,I`ll only give you few examples of conspiracies.The Kuwaiti baby incubators hoax,the Niger uranium "yellow cakes" forgeries.
Power corrupts,absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Reply
Jason Colavito link
4/2/2014 11:32:26 pm

No, he's not making the case that conspiracies don't exist, but rather he is examining the specific "conspiracy theory" phenomenon which attempts to explain aspects of the world through appeal to an all-powerful set of hidden forces. He himself explains that it can be hard to draw the line between actual government malfeasance and a conspiracy theory, it is typically the size, scope, and power of that conspiracy (combined with an objective lack of evidence for its existence and power), and its adoption as a world view, that demarcates a conspiracy theory.

Reply
terry the censor
4/3/2014 11:07:13 am

> The Kuwaiti baby incubators hoax, the Niger uranium "yellow cakes" forgeries.

Tara, you give good examples of actual conspiracies. What I have noticed online, however, is that conspiracy mongers almost never talk about well-documented conspiracies that have caused actual harm. It's paradoxical. I can't explain it.

> the notion that there is no such thing as "conspiracy"?

If I may presume to say so, Tara, I think it is you who are making an error, albeit a common one.

There are conspiracies (proven) and conspiracy theories (not proven) -- disproving theories does not discredit established facts.

Because the word "conspiracy" is used for facts as well as theories, this perhaps leads to confusion. I personally don't understand how anyone can make this error. I believe conspiracy proponents use such cheap rhetoric dishonestly to innoculate their opinions from facts and analysis. I think conspiracy consumers repeat this rhetoric uncritically because it is comforting. (A very human flaw we all share in one area or another. Just listen to sports shows on the radio and you will learn that the league office is determined to prevent the hometown team from achieving glory!)

To solve this semantic problem, I would distinguish conspiracy theory (which should be a neutral term applied to earnest researchers) from conspiracy mongering (a pejorative earned by people who just make up crap and don't respect facts).

I hope this is useful.

Reply
Tara Jordan link
4/3/2014 03:56:05 pm


"To solve this semantic problem, I would distinguish conspiracy theory (which should be a neutral term applied to earnest researchers) from conspiracy mongering (a pejorative earned by people who just make up crap and don't respect facts)."

You nailed it.Thanks for the feedback,Terry.

M Wilson
4/8/2014 04:18:48 pm

gotta say the incubators and yellow cake stories were not necessarily conspiracies - they were just lies.

Mike Titus pullo
4/3/2014 11:36:08 am

I slightly disagree on the design part. The best book on social science is the fatal conceit by Fredrick Hayek. Spontaneous order often creates complex societies only to have those societies wrecked by the experts trying to design a better society, empire or some such.

Reply
Tara Jordan link
4/3/2014 04:14:40 pm

I only read "The Road to Serfdom".I heard that Hayek was acquainted & deeply influenced by Leo Strauss (not surprising since they both spent time at the University of Chicago).Can you confirm?.
Off topic,but if haven't,you should read Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit "Lordship and Bondage".This is masterpiece.

Matt Mc
4/3/2014 01:07:43 am

Adding this book to the ever growing list of books I need to get.

Does the book go into or explore about why certain people or personality types are more inclined to believe in conspiracy theories than others?

Reply
Pacal
4/3/2014 10:39:41 am

As per usual there is politically correct alternative speak.

Thus we get this from Phil:

"I don't care much for "conspiracy theories," no matter who puts them forward …

BUT … As a SERIOUS student of North American history and pre-history, I DO know firsthand that SOME in "the Establishment" CAN be -- HAVE been -- FAR inordinately closed-minded …

Again, I'll just say the Magic Words -- "Clovis FIRST" ..."

In the above there is the required, chant concerning how close minded "the Establishment" is and although this time it is confined to "some" still the emphasize is on how "close-minded" they are. This is of course conventional "alternative" speak. As such it is a dull cliché. Frankly it is my experience that many so-called daring "alternative" thinkers are "close-minded" rigid in their beliefs utterly un-willing to modify them and yes they far more often than so-called "establishment" types dogmatic. And of course when they spill out their un-evidenced fantasies, which they will stick too come hell or high water, and so-called "establishment" types say "sorry but not convincing". They go into a tirade about being them "close minded". They of course indicate projection and just how utterly sealed up their own minds are.

As for Clovis first. Well that has been a nice whipping boy for the "alternatives" for decades now and it is more than a bit of a strawman. First of course it is now accepted that there where people in the New World before Clovis and secondly the bottom line was that the evidence for before Clovis was patchy and even now it is not exactly abundant although it is conclusive.

When I was getting a Anthropology degree in the late 1970s early 80s virtually all the Anthropology Profs thought there had been people in the Americas pre-Clovis, but they all thought that the evidence for pre-Clovis man was poor. (And they were right about that.)

Reply
Rev. Phil Gotsch
4/3/2014 02:34:19 pm

I've been following these questions with avid informed interest for DECADES … When EVER somebody -- anybody -- excavated a site and obtained C-14 dates that were older that "Clovis," the stock response was nearly ALWAYS, "That date CAN'T be right, because it would be older than 'Clovis' …"

See, the "Clovis FIRST" dogma was sacrosanct for quite a while … THAT was an instance of a decidedly CLOSE-minded establishment ...

Reply
Only Me
4/3/2014 04:16:29 pm

Phil, you've been repeating this same assertion as an example of academic dogma far too long. You obviously believe it, but can you site verifiable examples of this attitude in practice? As others have explained, finding evidence that shifts the paradigm is a feather in the cap to the individual who finds, documents and presents this evidence. With so much riding on such a discovery, I want to know when and how dogma overrode such finds.

In other words, I want more than a blanket opinion that doesn't change.

Rev. Phil Gotsch
4/3/2014 04:24:52 pm

BINGO … "Clovis FIRST" … was TAKEN to be a "paradigm" for quite a while … But in fact … it was just a DATE ...

Pacal
4/3/2014 04:43:04 pm

You have just said something that is a perfect example of close-minded dogma typical of "alternative" thinkers. Whose rigidness and fanatical dogmatism would make the most "close-minded" "establishment" person pale by comparison. You could try to regurgitated a different example of hide bound "alternative" "political correctness". Since you are dogmatically welded to this fairy tale. I will again point out that when I got my Anthropology degree no one who taught me had much of a problem with before Clovis and none of the texts etc. I read, I had to read had much of problem with it either. I too have kept up with the debate and I frankly saw little of what you see. I love your use of agitation propaganda terms like "when Ever" and the "the stock response was nearly ALWAYS". Then there is your fantasy terminology ""Clovis FIRST" dogma was sacrosanct" and another shriek about a "decidedly Close-minded establishment".

So so tiresome.

Rev. Phil Gotsch
4/4/2014 11:37:59 am

"Pacal" --
Key question re: your "take" … When did you take your degree … ???

Matt Mc
4/4/2014 12:01:56 pm

Rev- why is that a key question?

I know it has been over 20 years since I have gotten my graduate degree in Film History and Restoration and while technology has changed a lot so that aspect is different but most of what the new graduate students are learning is similar to what I learned. Given Film History and Anthropology while having some overlap are two different fields the end game is the same. To better understand and preserve our past with hope of learning from it to help understand our future


terry the censor
4/3/2014 02:01:01 pm

@Steve StC

Steve, in trying to insulate Scott Wolter from expert criticism -- peer review -- you make ridiculous arguments.

By your notions, academic funding and peer review are flawed, perhaps corrupt, therefore Wolter and his ilk should NOT be held accountable for their claims.

That's like saying some cops and some judges are corrupt, that juries make mistakes, therefore we should NOT enforce laws and should NOT have prisons.

Please stop.

Reply
El Snarko
4/3/2014 05:44:40 pm

Well, when you are wrong about something, ridiculous arguments are all that is left aside from name calling.

Reply
Stev StC
4/3/2014 06:50:27 pm

"terry the censor"

I never said Scott or others should be "NOT be held accountable for their claims." Yours is a terribly weak argumentative technique.

Show me where I said that.

In fact, Scott would welcome it. My point is that the academic-peer-review set have proven they are too corrupt to be allowed to be the sole arbiters of this process. But the academic-peer-review cult is not willing to let others play in their sandbox. And the wanna-be set on this blog are, in a very small way, perpetuating this behavior.

Reply
terry the censor
4/6/2014 07:37:54 am

> I never said Scott or others should be "NOT be held accountable for their claims."

Ha! You said experts could not hold Wolter and others accountable for their claims! How is that different?

STEVE: "academic peer review is flawed and purposefully attempts to stop exploration that disagrees with the academia-accepted paradigms. Stop insisting the rest of the world get in line to have their work peer-reviewed by people who are trying to kill exploration."

Only Me
4/3/2014 07:40:01 pm

OK, Phil. I've done a little homework and have discovered that your belief, "the "Clovis FIRST" dogma was sacrosanct for quite a while … THAT was an instance of a decidedly CLOSE-minded establishment ...", isn't entirely true.

See, as a serious student of history that has followed the debate for decades, you know that Clovis artifacts were discovered around 1929. You also know that different excavations took place between 1931-1938. Therefore, "Clovis First" became the benchmark, since there were no known contenders for the title until later. Need examples? Consider the following:

/Pedra Furada/- discovered 1973, findings published 1986

/Topper/- excavation 1980's, findings reported 2004

/Meadowcroft Rockshelter/- discovered 1955, excavations 1973-1979, 1989, 1990-present

/Buttermilk Creek Complex/- excavation 2006, dated by optically stimulated luminescence (OSL)

/Cactus Hill/- discovered mid-1980's, excavation 1993-2002

/Monte Verde/- discovered 1975, excavation 1977, findings reported 1987, accepted 1997

/Saltville Archaeological Site SV-2/- excavation 1992-1997

/Connley Caves/- excavations 1967, 2000-2001

/Page-Ladson prehistory site/- discovered 1959, excavations 1983-1997, 2012-present

/Paisley Caves/- first studied 1930's, excavation 2002-present

So, what do they all have in common? They're all considered as pre-dating Clovis and with the exception of Connley Caves, none of them were excavated earlier than 40 years after Clovis had been discovered, excavated, studied, dated and accepted.

You know the discovery, excavation, study and dating of an archaeological site can easily span decades. During the 70 years or so of Clovis First, archaeologists didn't just stop looking. They didn't say, "Clovis! No need to go any further!". In fact, not all scholars during that time agreed with the theory and fought with their peers over new discoveries that challenged it.

So, Phil, I'd reconsider your opinions about Clovis First and "the establishment" if I were you.

Reply
Rev. Phil Gotsch
4/4/2014 10:53:56 am

Nonsense …
OF COURSE archaeologists have ventured to excavate -- and date -- as many ancient sites as possible … Who says otherwise … ???

But again, I KNOW what I have READ (reports and papers) in which objections WERE raised about a particular date NOT on basis of technique or any such thing, but simply that it COULDN'T be earlier than "Clovis" because everybody was SURE that "Clovis" WAS the oldest …

In another blog forum, our host, Mr. Colavito, tried to make an argument similar to yours, invoking a "blue ribbon panel" (!!!) that did a couple decades ago finally reluctantly CONCEDE that there ARE earlier dated sites in The Americas … See … the FACT that it took a "blue ribbon panel" DEMONSTRATES the sacrosanct nature of the "Clovis" date at THAT time …

Trust me on this, VERY few archaeological C-14 dates are reviewed by a "blue ribbon panel" … They may be thoroughly investigated, discussed and critiqued … but they are NOT held up to special extra intense scrutiny by The Paleo-College of Archaeo-Cardinals ...

Reply
Only Me
4/4/2014 12:23:34 pm

Then we have returned to my earlier request. I asked you for examples of stonewalling in support of Clovis First, because I wanted to know for myself if your conclusion had verifiable precedent. Now you tell me about reports and papers you've read that led to your conclusion. Can you point me towards these reports and papers, so that I might read them myself, if possible?

This was the reason for my research. You can tell me about pro-Clovis First shenanigans all day, but I want to know the how, when and where, so I can make my own conclusion.

Pacal
4/4/2014 12:25:09 pm

You must really stop shouting. I have read a great many reports about the earliest Paleo-Indian sites and frankly I never read or saw the fantasy that you have concocted about the "sacrosanct nature" of Clovis. Just how were my Anthropology profs so accepting about pre-Clovis as a strong possibility more than 30 years ago? They just thought the evidence was, then, bad about which they were right.

And thank you for another telling indication of just how steeped in "alternative" dogma you are. All the "politically correct" stuff about the "rigid" "close-minded" "establishment" declarations of faith are there. And of course the usual and oh so tiresome agit-prop: "...but they are NOT held up to special extra intense scrutiny by The Paleo-College of Archaeo-Cardinals ..."

A perfect, perfect statement of "alternative" speak.

Rev. Phil Gotsch
4/4/2014 01:40:17 pm

Well, let's try this …

ask our host, Mr. Colavito, about the "blue ribbon panel," when it was conducted, and why ANYONE thought it NECESSARY ...

Jason Colavito link
4/4/2014 01:46:28 pm

As always, Phil is refighting battles from many decades ago as though the way things were in the 1960s, 1970s, or 1980s are still the way things are today. By 1990, many archaeological texts already discussed Monte Verde as an accepted pre-Clovis site, but many older archaeologists wanted better proof before accepting what seemed to be anomalous results. The panel of archaeologists in the late 1990s ratified what most younger archaeologists had already accepted a decade or more earlier.

I simply can't fathom why so many fringe believers feel that science stopped around 1970 except that they mistake their high school textbooks for eternal dogma. I imagine in 20 years' time we'll be hearing about how the ideas of 1990 are the eternal dogma that must be opposed.

Rev. Phil Gotsch
4/4/2014 01:59:08 pm

When I was a student of North American archaeology back in the late 60s, MY profs weren't hidebound close-minded "Clovis FIRST" devotees, either …

But there WERE some such and they WERE part of the established "paradigm"-ers … and it DID generate a "blue ribbon panel" (which to MY mind ought not have been necessary) ...

Indeed, I take comfort in the observed fact that science DOES move forward (though sometimes in halting fits and starts) …

The increasing recognition of a NEED for a fresh look at the Kensington Rune Stone is ONE instance … The POSSIBILITY of pre-Columbian cultural contacts between Hawaii and North America is another …

I happen to be a serious student of these questions who has ALWAYS maintained an open mind given to FREE inquiry, no matter WHAT the prevailing established view may be at the time ...

Only Me
4/4/2014 05:50:12 pm

OK, Phil.

Pacal said, "I will again point out that when I got my Anthropology degree no one who taught me had much of a problem with before Clovis and none of the texts etc. I read, I had to read had much of problem with it either." You brushed him off by asking, "When did you take your degree … ???"

But then...

You said, "When I was a student of North American archaeology back in the late 60s, MY profs weren't hidebound close-minded "Clovis FIRST" devotees, either …"

Both statements alone prove that the "Clovis First" dogma wasn't as ironclad as you claim it was. The sole example for your argument was the 1997 panel decision to accept the findings at Monte Verde, something already accepted as true by most, 10 years prior.

Here's your problem, Phil. You have a dogmatic BELIEF, just like the Clovis First supporters, that you will not relinquish, for the same reason they wouldn't. You would be wrong.

Rev. Phil Gotsch
4/5/2014 11:48:00 am

Why was a 'blue ribbon panel" convened (required) in order to drive the nails into the coffin of the "Clovis FIRST 'paradigm'" … ???

Only Me
4/5/2014 01:44:22 pm

Firstly, drop the "blue ribbon panel" label. It's a misnomer you've chosen to use because it sounds good.

Secondly, the panel was convened because there was a minority of hold-outs who didn't want to let go of Clovis First. The majority of archaeologists had already studied Tom Dillehay's reports and agreed with his findings. The decision meant the minority had to accept they'd been wrong. This is nothing new or controversial, so please stop trying to use what happened as being typical, widespread archaeological intransigence.

Rev. Phil Gotsch
4/5/2014 01:59:50 pm

I agree that our host, Mr. Colavito, made an unfortunate tactical error in using the term, "blue ribbon panel" …

And, yes, there WERE "holdouts" who held FIRMLY (dogmatically) to the "Clovis FIRST 'paradigm'," for whatever reasons of their own …

Just so, there have been -- continue to be -- "holdouts" who hold FIMLY (dogmatically) to the now outdated claims that the Kensington Rune Stone is a crude hoax perpetrated by a simple Swedish immigrant farmer as a joke …

Only Me
4/5/2014 02:39:44 pm

FIMLY?

Man, that's wanting to hold onto something *bad*! LOL

Anyway, Phil, what I wanted you to understand is that the actions of a minority (hold-outs), are not equal to a "close-minded establishment" who held a prevalent paradigm as "sacrosanct". A minority cannot issue stock responses that stymie future progress. It can serve as a particularly frustrating roadblock, but like a dam under too much pressure, it must eventually give way to new ideas with strong evidence.

I'm just asking you to consider your word choice better. No matter the topic of debate, a minority (like the majority), does not speak for or represent all.

Rev. Phil Gotsch
4/5/2014 03:01:33 pm

WHY was a "blue ribbon panel" convened (deemed NECESSARY) in order to drive a stake into the heart of the "Clovis FIRST 'paradigm'" … ???

I still want to know ...

Only Me
4/5/2014 04:48:50 pm

Because the prevalent theory had Clovis people entering North America 13,000 years ago through an ice-free corridor. They would have then had to spread out in a short time to make it as far as the southern end of America. Monte Verde, being demonstrably older, suggested that a different migratory route took place, or, people had entered the Americas before 20,000 years ago, which is when Canada and the northern U.S. were closed off by two converging ice sheets. Neither scenario fit with the Clovis First model and were rejected by those that still supported the theory.

In 1997, a group of 12 archaeologists (including some of Monte Verde's loudest critics) visited the site and examined the artifacts for themselves. It was then, they came away convinced of the site's antiquity.

But, here's the funny part. This is an excerpt of the reactions of other archaeologists after the trip was made:

* As news of their acceptance of the site spread, community reaction was decidedly mixed. Some were relieved that such a prominent skeptic as (C. Vance) Haynes had publicly accepted a pre-Clovis site. Others were a bit irritated by what they saw as an overblown press response. "What's the big fuss?" wonders University of Texas geoarchaeologist Karl Butzer, who had considered the published date of 12,500 on Monte Verde "uncontroversial" for some time. Clovis expert Reid Ferring of the University of North Texas agrees: "I've been teaching my students for years that there is sufficient evidence that Monte Verde is pre-Clovis. You don't have to go to Chile to figure that out." In his view, the trip was chiefly a public benediction of the site: "I've been teasing them that they should have carried incense burners." Jacques Cinq-Mars, an archaeologist at the Canadian Ministry of Civilization, agrees: "There's a paradox there. You're glad it's been done. At the same time, it's a bit irritating that the site has now been blessed by the Inquisition." * http://www.archaeologyfieldwork.com/AFW/Message/Topic/2830/Discussion/monte-verde

Rev. Phil Gotsch
4/5/2014 06:21:22 pm

BINGO … !!!

There ought NOT have been a perceived NEED to convene a "blue ribbon panel" … Exactly my point ...

Only Me
4/5/2014 07:15:12 pm

No, Phil, your point was that Clovis First was "sacrosanct", a "stock response", and "an instance of a decidedly CLOSE-minded establishment ...".

I've shown that your conclusion isn't completely true. Your own professors, Pacal's, and what I've found during my search demonstrate clearly that Clovis First was in decline, not universally accepted, and only defended by a minority that HAD to see contradictory evidence first-hand before it would change it's opinion.

Thanks for the exercise, but I've grown tired with this. Believe what makes you happy; I, for one, prefer the truth, no matter how cold and hard it may be.


Rev. Phil Gotsch
4/6/2014 03:32:30 am

"Only Me" --

Yes or No …

Do you or do you not agree with me that it ought NOT have been necessary to convene a "blue ribbon panel" in order to get aside the "Clovis FIRST 'paradigm'" … ???

Harry
4/6/2014 07:21:39 am

Phil,

Yes or no:

Should it have been necessary for NASA to go to the MOON in order to prove that it is not MADE OF GREEN CHEESE!

Your last QUESTION to Only Me assumes the existence of a "Clovis FIRST paradigm" that Only Me does not concede existed at the time and that you have anecdotal evidence in the nature of what you claim anonymous archaeologists believed, contradicted by other anecdotal evidence of what your professors believed.

The point Only Me made was that the so-called "blue ribbon" panel put the last nail in the coffin of a former paradigm that was no longer a majority opinion.

There were obviously still some Clovis First holdouts, and the reexamination of the Monteverde site by the "blue ribbon panel" was no doubt necessary to convince them, but it was not necessary to shift the paradigm or, apparently, to convince most archaeologists familiar with the issue.

terry the censor
4/6/2014 07:57:34 am

@Rev. Phil Gotsch

Phil, being a tireless crank is indeed tiresome.

These people have refuted you on Clovis dogmatism, yet you will NEVER concede your point. That makes you a complete fraud.

Think about it your Clovis logic but as relates to you:

Why is it necessary to have a bevy of critics arguing with you? Because you represent a dogmatic majority? Or because you are a very noisy minority who pointlessly irritates everyone with your obtuseness?

Rev. Phil Gotsch
4/6/2014 10:35:12 am

Again …

The FACT that there WAS a "blue ribbon panel" convened (because one was thought NECESSARY) in order finally to dispose of "The Clovis FIRST 'paradigm'" prima facie DEMONSTRATES that there WAS a (dogmatic) "paradigm" …

OF COURSE … not ALL academics, anthropologists, archaeologists, historians were captive to The Paradigm … but obviously SOME significantly WERE -- hence the felt NEED to CONVENE the "blue ribbon panel" … Hello … ???

THIS student of North American archaeology NEVER bought the dogma, and I always found it frankly ODD whenever a reported C-14 date for a site was *dissed* on basis that everybody already KNEW that "Clovis" is the OLDEST ...

terry the censor
4/6/2014 12:00:44 pm

@Rev Phil

> there WAS a (dogmatic) "paradigm" …not ALL academics, anthropologists, archaeologists, historians were captive to The Paradigm … but obviously SOME significantly WERE

Only in your willful manner can "some" constitute a "paradigm."

Your pretense of fairness and rationality fools no one when you made such patently ridiculous distortions of meaning and logic.

Repent.

Rev. Phil Gotsch
4/6/2014 12:46:46 pm

WHY did ANYONE think that the "blue ribbon panel" was NECESSARY … ???

terry the censor
4/6/2014 02:12:17 pm

@Rev Phil
> WHY did ANYONE think that the "blue ribbon panel" was NECESSARY … ???

The reason has been stated several times already. You refuse to accept the explanation. Ask yourself why you refuse to accept you are wrong -- stop asking us, please.

Rev. Phil Gotsch
4/6/2014 02:19:05 pm

LOL …

My to-the-point question HAS been answered several times -- with hemming and hawing …

Harry
4/7/2014 01:06:49 am

Phil,

You and Scott are proof that some people engage in fact-free DOGMATISM!

I am not convinced that Clovis FIRST advocates were necessarily DOGMATIC when they refused to accept CONCLUSIONS based on a single SITE that appeared to predate the Clovis culture without a careful examination by EXPERTS they trusted would not have a pro-Monteverde ax to grind. It might be that they were SCEPTICS who held onto Clovis First PROVISIONALLY because all of the other evidence was consistent with that earlier paradigm. The fact that they were PROVEN WRONG does not automatically make their views unreasonable or dogmatic.

You see, science is all about replicating results. Because, even if the first hundred tests support a thesis, the next one can appear to disprove it. But what if that apparent disproof turns out to be based on a research or experimental error. For instance, what if the Monteverde site was contaminated? Reasonable people might demand better proof. The fact that the Clovis First advocates on the "blue ribbon panel" agreed that Monteverde was genuine suggests that they were not so dogmatic, after all.

But what if some of the Clovis First holdouts were motivated by dogmatism, pure and simple? That would only prove that scientists are human and some of them are prejudiced. One way to deal with them is to distrust their conclusions, as many of us distrust Scott Wolter's conclusions for that very reason. Another way is to point out the DEEP FLAWS in their reasoning.....

Rev. Phil Gotsch
4/7/2014 02:54:13 pm

ANY site that is C-14 dated may well have a few problems … This isnothing new and is NOT unique to Monte Verde …

What is MARKEDLY unusual is that a "blue ribbon panel" was convened -- because it was thought NECESSARY -- precisely and ONLY because the "Clovis FIRST 'paradigm'" was at issue …

Harry
4/7/2014 11:52:53 pm

I take it that the issue of when mankind first arrived in the Americas was an especially important issue that everyone involved cared about. More to the point, Clovis Firsters were free enough of dogma to take pat and to agree with the evidence. None of which supports your (presumed) point that the blue ribbon panel was necessary because Clovis Firsters were captive to a dogmatic paradigm.

But I know that no amount of reason will dissuade you from your assertions, or at least get an admission that you might be wrong, no matter how ill-conceived they are. So I am signing off of this discussion.

Rev. Phil Gotsch
4/8/2014 03:29:34 am

Wise choice, Harry ...

Snarkenstein
4/4/2014 04:53:46 pm

In the latest three way dance its St Clair 0, Gotsch 0, Colavito 10.

Reply
Judith Bennett
4/4/2014 06:09:52 pm

Even if St Clair had a valid point, which he clearly doesn't, the 'evidence' he presents is from a grant application for an expedition that took place in 1956! Whilst I don't expect conspiracy theorists to be up to date, going back nearly sixty years is a bit of a stretch.

Reply
Johnny
4/7/2014 04:11:50 am

Steve is defending his so called friend, Scott Wollter, and has very recently been spending more and more time doing it on as many posts as he can. Under the veil of friendship, Steve was probably recently directed by Wollter to defend Wollter. Just some thoughts that may be likely.

Sir Gunn Sinclair link
4/5/2014 01:56:52 pm

If I may examine and perhaps personalize the concept of peer review:

It seems apparent to me that there are two kinds of peer review raising their heads here: the professional peer review and the "alternative" or "fringe" review.

I have in the recent past explored the possibility of presenting a thesis of my own for peer review. In a way, I've already done that as a so-called fringe thinker here on this blog...in essence, I've tried to parlay my my beliefs about the Kensington Runestone and stoneholes into a sort of peer review here. I think it may have worked a bit, but not much to my satisfaction because of the nature of this being a skeptic's blog, mostly. That's okay, and so far I've been able to take the little bit of abuse that comes with butting heads with "the other side."

To my understanding, I need to present and explain my theory or hypothesis in such a way that it can be repeated, and the same conclusions can be drawn, over and over, by sane people...somewhat like the scientific method of needing to repeat an experiment. In my mind, I pretty much did that here, and I tried to back up my theorizing by putting pertinent information up on a website dedicated to exploring the notion of medieval European activity up in this MN region.

Recently here on this blog, I tried my utmost best to get some rather skeptical personalities here to see a viable water-way leading to Runestone Hill, and also to an even farther westward location, where two oceanic water-ways come together near Big Stone Lake. See, I came to the realization during my year or so on this blog that all the stoneholes and rock carvings and other oddities along the Whetstone River near Big Stone Lake almost certainly represent a medieval Scandinavian landing place, if you will, and most evidences seem to trace back to Swedish origins--including the KRS itself.

I've read all the discussion, above, about how the Viking Sagas pointed out a likely place to hone in on in Newfoundland. Well, if I may say so bluntly, I feel that my water-way studies and stonehole studies have likewise pointed to a likely place to hone in on...but instead of trying to find evidence in North America, my ambition is to find (or help others find) real, actual evidence in this "New Gotaland" area of extreme far southeastern SD...which would represent the first "acceptable" evidence found in America. (Of course, many of us already know the KRS is real evidence...yet, still not acceptable to mainstream historians.)

Question: Is it possible for me to present a theory for peer review to professionals, or is this hopelessly "fringe thinking" to the academics...and would I only be wasting my time?

By the way, after a lot of (admittedly OCD-compelled) study, my conclusion is that Wolter is seriously mistaken about many aspects of the KRS. I came to my own conclusions by taking the message of the KRS at face value. In opposition to Wolter, I firmly believe the KRS is simply a memorial stone, only being associated with attempted taking up of local land, not more broadly as a land claim itself . Even though Wolter helped the KRS temporarily by re-authenticating it several years ago, he is now not helping much at all...in fact, he is hindering the search for truth, in my opinion, by looking for codes (other than double-dating) and mixing in holy bloodline crap, now seriously out of vogue.

However, Wolter could be right about Templars/Cistercian Monks being responsible for some of the evidences up here, but from what era? Even if post-Templars, quasi-Templars (whatever) didn't leave the KRS, I speculate that they may be responsible, along with mostly Swedes, for leaving behind the other many evidences, including metal weapons, stoneholes, carvings, etc., quite possibly at an earlier date...which could possibly represent earlier Scandinavians, including these strange Templars from a time of their actual existence, say a hundred years or two hundred years before the placing of the KRS, when they were very powerful, indeed.

Templars in MN is possible, given the possible evidence, or at least indications. We recall that Wolter, in his X book, showed a few possible links between the stoneholes made in Europe and likely Templar locations in Europe, and then he correctly--in my opinion--showed how they are just like the many aged, triangulated, hand-chiseled stoneholes found in MN and SD and in many other places in America.

But, Runestone Hill seems to be an inland mapping geographical reference point, not much else. The stonehole rocks encircling Runestone Hill almost certainly pre-dated the placing of the KRS; the party probably figured someone would be returning to that point of land, which, not so co-incidently, lies exactly on a direct compass line between Duluth--representing the farthest westward point of lake sailing--and my above-proposed "New Gotaland."

Bottom Line: In my humble opinion, New Gotaland is the primary spot to search for further medi

Reply
Gunn
4/5/2014 01:59:25 pm

...eval evidences and greater meaning, not Runestone Hill. It is much more likely that the Whetstone River area of SD will end up producing acceptable evidences to historians in the future, not Runestone Hill.

Note: I've switched my website address to:

www.hallmarkemporium.com

Reply
Mandalore
4/5/2014 03:44:22 pm

Gunn,

Number 1: The above comment is way too long.

Number 2: This is off topic.

Number 3: Anyone can submit an article to an academic journal. Fins the one that most fits your writing, probably an American archeology one. They will then send your paper to pertinent scholars familiar with the topic. This is done anonymously (neither you nor they will know who the other is) in order to avoid bias. But to get it accepted for publication you will need to exhaustively research the topic and answer questions like those asked of you in previous comments sections.

Reply
Gunn
4/6/2014 03:52:55 am

From Jason: "For Scott Wolter, this manifests, famously, in his belief that the Kensington Rune Stone, which on its surface tells of the travels of Norse people in Minnesota, is covering a hidden agenda discussed in a hidden-letter dot code—a land claim by the Knights Templar to the Mississippi watershed."

Gunn
4/6/2014 03:59:24 am

Also on subject, my discourse about peer review:

From Jason, in heading: "As a geologist, Wolter often uses his position to suggest that his findings, no matter how untethered from the scientific method, meet the standards of mainstream science by appealing to his scientific training and to his own unique interpretation of peer review, which for him does not involve publishing in academic journals but rather the process by which fellow geologists sign off on geological reports."

Obviously, I commented about Wolter/Templars and peer review. The extras were a bonus.

RLewis
4/7/2014 02:06:36 am

This blog is in no way equal to peer review. I expect that most of us (including myself) do not have the qualifications to peer review most of the various topics discussed here (although I realize that there are those that may be experts in specific areas).
If you have a real theory with real facts, then by all means submit it for peer review. However, if you only have speculations/ideas/alternate views of history without any hard testable evidence then I believe you will have trouble getting published.

Reply
Gunn Sinclair link
4/7/2014 02:00:24 pm

RLewis, I agree with you. What I had hinted at was the notion of a very loose sort of peer review, without qualified personnel, yet set before a few astute individuals here, including Jason.

Here's my problem: I have a real theory with real facts, but the facts--being multiple evidences--are not looked at by academics and professionals because of this "yoke" alluded to here. See, these evidences really are facts, yet they are not perceived by the academic crowd as being facts, or evidence, any more than the KRS is. I know why, of course, which has everything to do with provenance, and this is as it should be.

Some of my earnest speculations/ideas/alternate views of history are testable, but I've found that sound logic connects dots pretty well, too. For example, the dreaded inland water-way to within a few miles of Runestone Hill is testable...indeed, I have shown the route, including a photo-essay showing the Chippewa River water flow just a few miles west of Runestone Hill. You probably recall the trouble I had not long ago trying to convince people of this--even Jason, who seems to want the French to make it up here in the 1600's, but not earlier Scandinavians, absolutely known for their water-way adventures.

The above-mentioned few astute readers would also know--using pure logic--that the dozens of aged, triangulated stoneholes found in the Whetstone River area, on various unconnected farms, over the years, are not a mass product of forgetfulness. No, no, no. This hidebound, fruity idea was perpetuated by some shabby "historian" here in MN years ago, and the stupid idea was carried forward--in fact, to this very blog a year or so ago. This remains somewhat the hidebound reason for all the many "unblasted" stoneholes, as ridiculous as it now sounds. People just don't want to get with the program, or attempted loose peer review, or whatever.

So, in essence, Jason himself didn't want to see the water-way to Runestone Hill, nor did he want to see the stoneholes for what they actually are...medieval Scandinavian evidences. Because of this "yoke" I spoke of, he can't reconcile these oddities. The professionals up here, and the academics up here, too, cannot reconcile these oddities. It is forbidden to connect the stoneholes to the water-ways--bad enough to connect the KRS to a nearby water-way! Professionals would like it to be more improbable, you see.

I admit that my Bachelors degree in Criminal/Social Justice doesn't qualify me in any way for archaeology and such, and I admit that I am looking at "the preponderance of evidence" in coming to my conclusions.

Unfortunately, my evidence isn't available to the professional skeptics; however, it is available for those with eyes to see here on this blog, via my website (above), and via my past explanations, anyway, regardless of the hoops and water-way blockages set up to ensnare this weary paddler.

Ah...there it is ahead...New Gotaland, South Dakota...the magical meeting place of seemingly wayward medieval sojourners coming from historically errant directions, East and North. A sign coming up:

"New Gotaland--Birthplace of American Euro-Centrism."

A small sign scrawled ad-hock, attached underneath: "Suck it up!"

RLewis
4/8/2014 02:07:32 am

A fact is something demonstrated to exist (among other definitions). Academics do not choose to perceive or not perceive them. If you can demonstrate them, they are facts.
The (possible) fact that waterways exist does not do much to support your theory - no more than the fact that Vikings had ships. It may support your hypothesis, but that gets us nowhere. Theories are supported by MULTIPLE facts - ideally from multiple disciplines. New theories MUST also show that they either 1) support other known/widely accepted facts/theories OR 2) address how/why existing knowledge is wrong.
And, BTW, if the existing theories are supported by other accepted theories you must also prove why those are all incorrect This is where most fringe theories fall on their face. They cherry pick one item and try to challenge one established piece of knowledge. What they don't seem to understand is that their new, dreamed-up story cannot stand isolated from all the rest of human knowledge.
Finally, your theory must have some predictable/testable aspects. For example, artifacts that ONLY (or more logically) support your new hypothesis. Again, you can speculate all you want, but until you produce new supporting evidence - no one will, or SHOULD, jettison established theories for your pet hypothesis.

Gunn link
4/8/2014 06:17:30 am

RLewis, everything sounded fairly reasonable until you got a bit snarky at the end, about my "pet" hypothesis. Just so you know, I've got a few side-interests in my life, too.

But, again, I agree with you about most of what you said. And I have met all the conditions you desire, through all my rantings here during the past year or so. Where do I pick up my much fought for certificate of peer review? Maybe Jason will sign it for me.

I don't cherry pick, myself. Everything is connected. You say the water-ways aren't important, yet I say that the first line of defense in protecting the status quo (yes, here) has been to feign difficulty in seeing easy-to-see water-ways.

Now that we have the water-ways FACTUALLY, geographically discerned, we can see the KRS next to a water-way, and we can see an over-abundance of un-blasted stoneholes next to the KRS and also--in even greater numbers--along the Whetstone River, as mentioned above, because of the significance of the spot connecting two oceanic water-ways far inland. I have a FACT-BASED theory.

Yes, yes, and I have dutifully established that it is FACTUALLY impossible for multiple farmers to have chiseled out all these stoneholes, then forgetting to blast them. I have dutifully shown how these aged, triangulated stoneholes are FACTUALLY just like examples in medieval Europe...actually, Wolter and others have pointed this out, well before me. I don't mind repeating that I believe Wolter was right about some things connected with authenticating the KRS, such as his musings about stoneholes--which basically got me going in my own search a few years back.

Anyway, RLewis, there are the other significant oddities to consider along with all this, the apparent medieval Scandinavian carvings and metal weapons, for example. Clearly, Sir, there wasn't a conspiracy, a mass producing of purposely left behind un-blasted stoneholes. Here on this blog, I have recently unraveled a sloppy past conclusion, again using logic mixed with FACTS, the FACTS in this case being the super-abundance of intact stoneholes themselves.

But remember, you and others here are absolutely denied the opportunity of actually seeing them for what they are FACTUALLY. You and other ardent skeptics must toe the line...the line with a lie tied to the end of it.

Skeptics are sometimes guilty of over-stepping their definition of what FACTS are, to suit their own hidebound agendas. FACTS come across like TRUTH in this case...it ends up being in the eye of the beholder. What is TRUTH, what are FACTS?

"Just the FACTS, ma'am, forget the rhetoric."

Some things are self-evident, based on both FACTS and logic. I find over-skepticism sad, when delivered in a form of purposeful self-delusion, when the common sense of a common man CANNOT even POSSIBLY ring true. Something is wrong with the bell here on this blog, in that case.

There sometimes seems to be a conspiracy of willful ignorance here on this blog. Ha! Ha! The skeptical anti-conspiracy folks are becoming the conspirators, conspiring to be willingly dull. This reminds me a lot of the Scandinavian mind-set up here in MN. Huh? Ya...ya betcha by gollie, huh? Well, huh?

There's a new "Fargo" series coming up next week. This crap is real up here. (I'm a transplant.) It's not Minnesota Nice, either...people are confused. It's actually Minnesota Nosy pretending to be nice. Same thing here on this blog sometimes: some of the people are pretending to be nice, but are really only being purposefully dull-seeming and nosy. It's always great, though, when one--including myself-- learns something new and FACTUAL.

Gunn
4/6/2014 03:34:37 am

Beg to differ, but my comments are entirely on subject. Any time Wolter is discussed in relationship to Templars or the KRS, I am on subject. It was a bit long, perhaps, but I got my message out (again) and you apparently read it. Bravo!

I need to answer questions like those asked of me before here? Another bravo! What would you like to know, specifically, Mandelore, since we are EXACTLY on subject?

Thanks for the other information. I can see that it doesn't do much good to explain things here...where most people purposely choose not to believe even geographical truth, such as easy-to-understand inland water-ways. I can't help it if people here like to play "stick yer head in the sand."

Anyway, I hope you learned something. That's why I come here, to occasionally learn something new with an open mind. I like to occasionally share my ideas, too. Too bad you are such a skeptic, and so very discouraging.

I would have to say you came across to me as more repugnant than helpful. Nice try, though. Like I said, it's a tough crowd here. But, next time I would prefer you just kept your close-minded opinions to yourself, obviously. My comments were for thinking people, not for dull ostriches looking for a sandy hole to rest their brains. Say, isn't that silence and darkness nice?

Reply
william smith
4/7/2014 06:16:12 am

I try not to get involved in groups that enjoy shooting the messenger before they read the message. What Scott Wolter has stated for years has some merit, however it has been proven wrong in many cases which should not be the focus of interest. I understand why S. Sinclair is a strong supporter of Scott and defends his position. As Jason has pointed out in many postings the lack of facts and distorted information that has been published on the History Chanel is not research. Research is finding factual data that leads to the truth.
Understanding the truth about early pre-Columbian explorations into America requires an open mind and looking at each mysterious artifact in great detail. This includes weighing each theory presented and the facts within. It also includes making sure all new information and findings are included in your research.
Some examples of new findings are as follows. David Johnson has located the Hooked X in Denmark papers that predate 1603 and appears to be a mark made on the Latin X in order to distinguish this runic letter from the numerical 10 making it an A. Mr. Johnson has also found other mistranslated letters on the KRS that support the land claim theory and the 10 dead from disease rather than conflict.
The treaty between Spain and Portugal in 1494 explains the procedure for claiming new land. (Build a tower on the east shore and place a marker 370 leagues west of this tower). The Newport Tower and the KRS fit this description and the triangle stone holes and hooked X are found at both locations.
Until the truth is found, do not shoot the messenger. It is like looking for a lost airplane with multiple pings. Which country has the best pinger?

Reply
Mandalore
4/8/2014 03:08:50 am

The Treaty of Tordesillas does not have anything about putting a tower and a marker 370 leagues west. It says that where the dividing meridian between Spanish and Portuguese areas crosses land, a marker or tower should be built as a border indicator. This would have been limited to a single line (with no markers elsewhere) and also only would have applied in modern-day Brazil where the meridian was located. The dividing meridian itself is located 370 leagues west of the Cape Verde islands.

The relevant portion of the treaty says that "And should, perchance, the said line and bound from pole to pole, as aforesaid, intersect any island or mainland, at the first point of such intersection of such island or mainland by the said line, some kind of mark or tower shall be erected, and a succession of similar marks shall be erected in a straight line from such mark or tower, in a line identical with the above-mentioned bound. These marks shall separate those portions of such land belonging to each one of the said parties; and the subjects of the said parties shall not dare, on either side, to enter the territory of the other, by crossing the said mark or bound in such island or mainland." (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/15th_century/mod001.asp)

Reply
Rlewis
4/8/2014 04:28:33 am

Hmmm, this treaty also leaves out the part about aligning the tower with Venus and incorporating a sort of egg-shaped rock in one of the arches.

william smith
4/10/2014 04:20:33 am

Mandalore - Thanks for your input, however I have studied the treaty in depth and feel the location of the markers (Tower and stone) are to be located on pole lines which are 370 leagues from east to west and 90 degrees from Meridian lines. The latitude position of these markers (Tower 41 north, KRS 45 North) are east west markers and fall into the Portuguese boundary.) The 370 leagues or 1100 miles is the distance between these pole lines at the northern latitude.

william smith
4/10/2014 05:17:52 am

R Lewis - The treaty was made in 1494 after Columbus attempted to claim the new world. In my opinion the Spanish were not aware that the Portuguese had already built the Tower and placed the western marker before the treaty. Yes the treaty did not explain many details of the tower because its existence was only know by the Portuguese and Danes. I have studied the tower in detail and reconstructed a 1/40 scale model with wooden floor beams and lift aids that are positioned where the existing pockets remain that supported them. I have even reconstructed the exterior atrium that went around the tower that added living area to the structure. The tower has many features that prove its function and date.
It is built using the Scottish/Dutch EL ( Ground to first floor 4 EL, first floor to loft 3 EL, loft to top 2 EL.) total height 9 EL or 28 ft.
It contains a stone of magnetite in the south column for building alignment.
It has a triangle stone at the top for builders mark and magnetic alignment of the time built (1472)
It has central heating from the ground fire charcoal pit on the north east exterior.
It has a small second floor fireplace with two flus to regulate the smoke in the upper two areas by blocking the outlets from standing on the roof of the atrium.
It has small grooves in the second and top floor north and south walls that held the ends of rods to smoke meat and tobacco hung on horizontal sticks.
It has a double trap door that worked as air control baffles from a common north south round beam that was controlled from outside or inside the tower by rotating the beam.
It has a lift aid above the west window and extended through the north east wall that allowed finished product to be unloaded to the outside of the west window.
It has soil test performed by Mich. State that show the likely of cod fish oil on the ground at the unload window.
All of the items found at the tower in 1947 and later fit the profile for its function.
In summary it performed the following in 1472.
1- East boundary of Vinland
2- Told the time of day (light on second floor wall as it moved west to east)
3- Time of year (light from south window going through the north south trap door to the ground at the center of the tower in longest day of the year and 8 ft. north of the tower on shortest day of the year)
4- The east west walls are thicker than the north south in order to support the upper weight of the floor beams.
5- The walls were coated with local made mortar inside and out for protection of the structure, sanitary and air flow. (This is still done today in smoke houses for the same purpose)
As for the oval stone above the western arch and light shining on it on Easter from the south window as Scott Wolter states may make a good story, but just does not work. It would have to shine through the floor and come through the small hole at the top of the south east side of the tower to do this. The aperture of the sun will not let the south window come into play for this function and it would not be a 9AM on Easter.

RLewis
4/10/2014 06:49:32 am

So, if I understand you right, the treaty supports your claim (of why and where the tower was built) because it "explains the procedure for claiming new land" - however the treaty was not in effect when the tower was built - in which case it doesn't support your claim.
Are we having or eating cake today?

Reply
william smith
4/10/2014 12:58:40 pm

RLewis - Yes the treaty between Portugal and Spain in 1494 explains the process to lay claim to new land, because the Portuguese had placed the tower in RI and the marker stone in Minn. in 1472. It is true that no treaty was in effect in 1472 when the tower was built, however this practice has been common for new discoveries. Good examples are the gold claims in Alaska or even the property you live on. Does your property deed date back to 1492? You must bake a cake before you eat it.

Gunn
4/7/2014 02:25:44 pm

William, I agree with much of what you say, except that I think you are adding to the message of the KRS on a few things. There is no actual reason to believe the KRS was ever moved, since the description "peninsula-island" perfectly fits the description of Runestone Hill, where it was discovered. I've been to the location many times. A ridge leads to it from the west, and a cluster of three stonehole rocks are to be found on the small knoll just before Runestone Hill.

Runestone Hill, I discovered, is exactly on a compass line between Duluth and the Whetstone River area, where the two oceanic water-ways converge.

As for the method of the men's destruction, disease is out of the question in my mind. Why? Because the 20 men were camped together, only separating to go fishing for the day. How could one entire group die within hours, and the entire other group survive? This is not logical. Also, in past comments here, I showed clearly how mass torture, beheading, scalping, etc., were the name of the game back then. An actual burial site exists in SD from the early Fourteenth century, with hundreds of skeletons showing signs of scalping. The KRS men were red and bloody because of the manner in which they were killed. Let's not be too politically correct here, as Wolter was also, oddly enough.

I do like your ideas about inland navigation, and I agree that there seems to be a real connection between the hooked X's on the KRS and the hooked X's found on the East Coast. We both believe the evidences are real, which is a good thing. Our interpretation is just a little different. But that's okay.

Reply
M Wilson
4/8/2014 04:58:39 pm

The significance of modern day Duluth and the compass (I assume straight) line through Runestone Hill to the Whetstone River?

Reply
M Wilson
4/8/2014 05:18:04 pm

I too am old and have an Anthro degree from 1970. I had professors then that argued the significance of mostly North American archaeological finds and the dating of them to a time prior to 13,000 years bp. There was very little to support pre-Clovis culture at the time. They and others also argued the positions in the family tree, names, habits and tool making abilities of the various pre- Homo sapiens known at that time from Africa. Many of those arguments still go on today. Nobody then and I don't think now accuse each other of any kind of conspiracy - in theory or action. It's all part of the normal academic discourse. Those that see conspiracy in this process simply do not understand how science works and how over the last many hundreds of years we got to the (still evolving) understanding of the universe and our place in it that we have today. To me they are akin to creation "science" folks saying "teach the controversy" thinking that the very existence of controversy makes their point that the science is wrong.

Reply
Gunn link
4/9/2014 05:09:34 am

Indeed, M Wilson. A quote from Albert Einstein comes to mind: "Imagination is more important than knowledge."

This I find curious, because on the surface it looks like knowledge in the scientific realm would be more important than imagination. But what Einstein is saying is that to get beyond current knowledge, imagination (insight; slowing the brain down enough to concentrate on a pin-point; BINGO-MUNDO!).

The idea is to focus enough to see possibilities, then pursue the possibilities. When all is sifted as a possible waste of time, what remains? Indeed, we come to the purified gold: clusters of vibrant, life-like stoneholes in rocks. But where is Einstein to explain the unacceptable?

His brain is locked away in glass and fluid, perhaps, yet a well-controlled case of fairly mild, untreated OCD can do wonders, too. The idea is to not stop focusing. Over the years, I collected various things...coins, stamps, LP's...all basically now considered a frivolous waste of time--kind of like mentally juggling sports statistics. So then, we will concentrate on things of importance, things that cannot ordinarily be explained very well...like fringe history. May the abstract become a bit clearer, please, is all we ask, right?

Thank you for your honest question, M. Wilson. The significance of Runestone Hill being on a straight compass line between the farthest westward sailing point (Duluth; sailing ship/s) and the super-abundance of un-blasted stonehole rocks and carvings to be found just across the MN border in SD, along the Whetstone River, is that Runestone Hill was chosen out as a geographical marker (knoll surrounded by stonehole rocks) to aid inland navigation between those two points.

This is not a coincidence. Runestone Hill represents a spot where more than a dozen stonehole rocks are found, and it is part of my "pet" theory that the stoneholes preceded the placing of the memorial KRS. The KRS party figured someone would be coming back to that spot, because of the marked-up knoll, which back in medieval times was considered a land mark for inland navigation.

There is a bit more significance, too, if I may press on just a bit. When the KRS was discovered, it was assumed that this was a major find by many people, way before the likes of Wolter or myself came along. But the significance, I believe, was over-stated, by calling it a continental land claim of some kind. Now, taking the KRS message at face value, it is merely a memorial stone...though the men were apparently in the process of attempting to take up land, I think, as proven out by the message and by the earlier stoneholes.

Farther west, along the Whetstone River, one can see that the entire river was marked up with stoneholes for future land ownership and development. The number of stoneholes out west, in what I have jokingly dubbed "New Gotaland," far exceed those which had encircled the KRS before it was removed to a local museum in Alexandria.

Most recently, I have come to realize that the stoneholes (and associated rock carvings depicting Scandinavian medieval items) are located in that precise location for a reason. The reason is that this is, unmistakably, where two major water-ways originating from the ocean happen to dwindle down and converge (Big Stone Lake area). Truly, even to this day, this is considered out in the middle of nowhere! It was even more so back then...yet the evidences I speak of are clearly visible several hundred years after they were created, to this very day.

So, the significance is that New Gotaland is the hot-spot to look for further medieval Scandinavian evidences, not Runestone Hill, because of more activity. Runestone Hill is an inland marked hill used for inland navigation.

What I am saying, too, is that the KRS party, and others before them, were able to know EXACTLY where they were at all times. The KRS party was never lost. They knew where they were from Vinland, exactly, because of the straight complass line between New Gotaland and Duluth, and because of the stonehole marked Runestone Hill.

I will be more than happy to entertain any further questioning of my theory, which I believe to be quite factual. Again, thank you for your interest.

Reply
Gunn link
4/10/2014 03:54:22 am

By the way, the aforementioned convergence also importantly represents the completion of a water-way circle, from Hudson Bay and back to the ocean through the St. Lawrence Seaway. A water-way circle? Indeed, and this is significant.

So, then, as the stoneholes and other evidences suggest, New Gotaland, SD, would be a great place to have a presence, because, EXACTLY because of the far inland water-way convergence.

Anyone can now see why it may be comforting for some folks to "imagine" the French being able to traverse the Upper Mid-west American landscape, but not the Scandinavians--known for their awesome water-way adventures. This is a misuse of the imagination Einstein was talking about. We shouldn't purposely "imagine" away factual, repeatable geography, just because we may be irritated by the result.

By the way, if anyone can help, I'm trying to find the reference to "Haakan's Circle," if there is a reliable record of such a thing. I read the term somewhere, but it seems elusive.

I think my proposed New Gotaland (Whetstone River/Big Stone Lake) was seen as THE actual connecting point of this CIRCLE, which I imagine may have been a pretty big deal back in the time of pre-Columbus Scandinavian explorations. Such, I imagine, was the excitement back in Vinland! We know that Scandinavians populated that mystical place--at least sporadically, for how long? At least between 1000-1362 AD. (Chuckle, chuckle.)

Words for the day: "circle," "stonehole circle," "inland water-way circle", and of course "life is a circle, from childhood to childhood" (Black Elk).

william smith
4/10/2014 05:34:14 am

Gunn - In addition to the Newport Tower being the east boundary of Vinland and the KRS being the west boundary of Vinland, The Ohio Rock is the center. The west boundary (KRS) was likely first located in 1362 as stated on the stone. The stone itself was likely carved in 1472 and located in its current position with a 65 mile adjustment to the east from the 1362 date because of clusters of triangle stone holes at each area and the faint scratch lines on the date runes of 1362 which imply the 3 was a 4 and the 2 was a 7.
The Newport Tower was built in 1472 as indicated by C 14 and the position of the triangle builders mark 14 degrees (magnetic declination of the tower in 1472)
The Ohio Rock with the Portuguese shield was likely placed in the center of Vinland by Michel Cort real in 1511 to mark the center of Vinland.

Reply
william smith
4/10/2014 04:39:51 pm

Some info for the record. The early translation of the KRS is (Eight Götalanders and 22 Northmen on (this?) acquisition journey from Vinland far to the west. We had a camp by two (shelters?) one day's journey north from this stone. We were fishing one day. After we came home, found 10 men red from blood and dead. Ave Maria save from evil.
(side of stone) There are 10 men by the inland sea to look after our ships fourteen days journey from this peninsula (or island). Year 1362)
The updated and supported changes by David Johnson from the actual runic translation (10 men dead) would actually read (10 men death). The word death was used to explain the plague and like diseases rather than the mistranslated ( found 10 men red from blood and dead). This is the medical symptom for death from pneumonia. With no immunity to this disease a native American would die within 10 to 12 days after exposure. The last few days would generate coughing up blood and the death look. Dr. Jeffrey Baker spent some time with me at the KRS site and provided this explanation. In addition a DNA test of 60 native American skeletons by the New England Medical research group indicated pneumonia was introduced into America for the first time in the late 1400s. It broke out in Rhode Island and western Wisconsin at the same time.
As for the water ways to the KRS and stone triangle holes ,the hooked X and the inland sea one needs to look and read the stone for what it says. When you do this you also have to ask questions and find the proper answers that withstand all challenges. Why would you leave 10 men at the inland sea to watch after the boats. The standard ship of the time had a capacity of 22 men. The inland sea was salt water. (Hudson Bay) The total crew size was at least 40 men. (8 Gotalanders, 22 Northmen and 10 by the sea). The 14 days north to the inland sea (72 miles x 14 days = 1008 miles) (Hudson Bay) also the 14 days gave enough time for the friendly native Americans to contact and die from pneumonia.
The hooked X exist in RI and KRS, The triangle stone holes exist in RI, Minn. and Ohio as well as along other water ways of early exploration.
Additional information is currently under study which may prove or disprove many established theory's. One of these is the conformation of the mechanical wear line on the KRS which many of the so called experts like Scott Wolter will never admit to because it would not fit their theory.
As for peer study required to be part of research is a bunch of BS. Peer is like people in your specific group judging your specific profession. Its not having your dentist work on your hemorrhoids as required by some on this site.

Reply
william smith
4/11/2014 12:29:16 pm

Gunn - I agree with your water way circle in that Hudson Bay and the St Lawrence both came into play. Their is evidence that support this, however their is no evidence that ocean going ships were on the St. Lawrence to my knowledge. The triangle stone hole at Duluth and the great lake map in stone in NY as well as native American history and other stone holes as well as compass components add support to this.
As for the KRS being relocated, I do not believe it was relocated in 1362 or 1472. The Paul Knutson party of 1362 and the Cort real party of 1472 were from the same Denmark and Portugal European country's. Their were also marriage ties that connected these country's. When the 1472 party got to Kensington 110 years after their 1362 kinfolk they carved and placed the KRS at its correct location. In 1362 the lodestone compass was likely not trusted as well as the standard lunar compass used by the Vikings. In 1472 the lodestone compass was the standard for measuring longitude. The 1472 party originally intended to date the KRS for that period as indicated in the small shallow tracer line in the number 3 that was not cut. The logic is they wanted the earliest claim date for the new land.

Reply
william smith
4/13/2014 03:16:34 am

Gunn and All
If you claim the KRS hill is located on a straight line with stone holes and Duluth. You must explain how the carver of the KRS made this straight line. Gunn - The KRS in my opinion was never moved. The 1362 date was carved in 1472 when the land claim was properly located on a north south pole line 370 leagues west of a north south pole line that includes the Newport Tower and Spirit Pond stone. They all contain the hooked X from Denmark, the stone holes and a documented reference dating 1494 (Treaty Spain and Portugal). They also had a common skill (trapping fish)
Mr. Young and Mr. Wilson are correct. You must have your facts back up your claim. If the treaty between Spain and Portugal had been dated 1491 instead of 1494 would that make a difference?
The treaty explains the process was in place in 1494, It does not explain when the process was established. A good researcher should be able to find this in the hidden letters between Spain and Portugal and the Vatican in Rome. My bet it was after 1472 when the three ships from Denmark and Portugal returned and all ship captains and the fleet commander were given high positions for their accomplishments. (These 4 promotions did not come by word of mouth alone)

Reply
Gunn link
4/13/2014 09:29:53 am

Sorry about the lengthy delay in responding. I haven't checked here for a while because of marketing my radically different, newly patented wind turbine.

William, you probably have a better idea of how a straight line could be drawn across a stretch of geography, even though I took map reading while attending an NCO school in Bad Tolz, then West Germany, back in the mid-70's. We used a compass, of course, and paid attention to physical landmarks, including elevation points. Oddly enough, many soldiers failed to pass the NCO academy because of not being able to finesse map reading.

Anyway, when was the magnetic compass invented? Then also when were astrolabes first used? Then we have the sky. And then there was the method you ascribe to, the lodestone method. To be honest, William, I'm not an expert on any of these methods, and I don't know which method the Scandinavians used in medieval times to get around, on both water and on land.

My main point is that I believe Runestone Hill was primarily an inland mapping reference, even before the KRS was deposited there strictly as a memorial stone back in 1362, if we believe the double-dating.

I have no problem with your speculations; I happen to believe the medieval activity up here was a mostly Swedish thing, although with other connections, such as, perhaps, monks and/or Templars, real-time...or perhaps "post-Templars."

William, disease is out. People living together don't die in neatly separate groups just because they are separated by a day of fishing. Sorry. Hopefully you and Wolter and those he misled about this are now properly realigned in their minds. Ha! Ha!

Reply
william smith
4/13/2014 10:52:08 am

Gunn - I will attempt to address each of your points, however others may have read different dates from all the published information.
The compass was first recorded in 300BC by the Chinese, Their is little reference that they used it for navigation, however from 300 BC onward it developed into a navigation aid and was the prime tool used by Columbus in 1492.
The oldest Astrolabe is dated to about 600 BC, however I have found that Moses had a staff with a hook that may have functioned as an Astrolabe by hanging a weight on a string and placed the hook end of the staff on the ground allowing the weight to read a scale on the inner surface of the hook and pointing the long end of the staff toward the sun at mid day. The first three Kings of Egypt displayed the staff and veil which may have been a form of astrolabe.
The disease (pneumonia) as related to the KRS would have little effect on the explorers because of their built up immunity to this, however the native Americans had no build up and fell victom to this within 10 days of contact.

william smith
4/14/2014 05:18:26 am

Gunn - A little more information on how the ancients may have understood how to mark key points on the earth and establish a straight line connection. My application for patent on this revised process is on file and is called the lunar compass. Some of the earliest recordings of man are in the form of sun god symbols or checker board squares. Many are shown in Berry Fells book (America BC). They are located in most cases near ancient sites on the top or side of Dolmens. Their function was to record time and distance on the earths surface from a common starting point by showing and recording the lunar cycles during their voyage to the new location. Another example is the Great Serpent Mound in Ohio. This earth mound structure has 3 coils in its tail which represent 3 lunar months at sea or 90 days. It has 7 direction changes representing the body of the serpent, representing 7 lunar months on land to get from the sea to Ohio. It has a head with the moon in its mouth and the overall direction is toward the north west. At this new location in Ohio they understood time and distance from their starting point and could make a line showing the connection between their new and old location. I have plotted 39 of these symbols from all parts of the world using the holy latitude of 26 degrees north as a home line and found that only one location on this latitude is common to all recordings. (26.5 latitude north and 65 longitude west). The problem I have is this is in the Atlantic Ocean where their is no land today.
In addition to the astrolabe their was a water cup that would function to determine latitude. Pictures of these early tools can be seen on ancient Egyptian drawings. A cup placed on the end of a rod. It worked by filling the cup with water and pointing it at the sun at mid day allowing some of the water to run out of the cup. Then place the cup in its normal position and make a mark inside the cup at the water level. During travel the cup could be filled to the mark inside and pointed toward the mid day sun. If water ran out they were north of their starting latitude and visa versa if they were south of their latitude. (note: the base line inside the cup was high on one side and low on the other which required the cup to be in the proper rotation according to the time of year in order to compensate for the changing mid day aperture of the sun during the year, (about 42 degrees from summer solstice to winter solstice).
Many would say this is nothing but an armature engineer fabricating a story and that the ancients did not have the technology to locate important sites with a straight line and calculate these points of importance, however before they shoot the messenger they should study the Newark mounds in Newark Ohio for tracking the moon and the stone cup, Decalogue stone (10 commandments in ancient Hebrew) and holy stone (Holy stone in ancient Hebrew on its side and 26.5 degree angle made from its sides) found in the same area.

Gunn
4/15/2014 05:57:04 am

Wow! Anyway, my point is that medieval Scandinavians were able to get around up here in this region, using mapping (Runestone Hill, for example) in conjunction with other methodology. The many explorers of that period who came here, knew where they were at.

Reply
william smith
4/15/2014 10:14:27 am

Gunn - You are correct in that they knew exactly where they were at. A few words on the KRS indicate this. (far west of Vinland) ( one day south of base camp) (14 days from the inland sea) (land acquisition).
In 1362 and 1472 the known technology's for measuring location were plenty. The astrolabe would measure latitude, the lunar compass would measure longitude, the lodestone compass would measure latitude, longitude and magnetic declination all in one tool, however any measurement for location has to have two points of interest. The starting point and the finishing point. It is my belief the starting point was at the established meridian line where magnetic north and true north were equal. Located in Portugal where Henry the Navigator built his school for navigation and taught the process for placing degree lines on a flat map to represent a round surface. He also was one of the first to place the cardinal rose on these maps in color to represent the trade winds for future travel. I also feel the Mystery Stone of N.H. is a lodestone from the compass that aided in the location of the KRS.
For the record, the KRS party was not the first Europeans to come to America. The Vikings did it as early as 1000 AD by using lunar navigation and a sun dial. The first Mormons to America used the lunar compass (a metal sphere with two pointers that sat on top of two round plates) This compass was called the Liahona (given to Lehi) REF: Book of Mormon.

Reply
Gunn
4/16/2014 08:01:15 am

Thanks for the new information. I knew the KRS party was cued-in to the landscape, but wasn't sure how. Your information about the various means of measuring direction back in the medieval period is very helpful. It helps show the reality of early European exploration and attempted land acquisition up here in MN and in New Gotaland.

I agree with the possibility of Portuguese being involved with the building of the Newport Tower, and it could easily involve post-Templar connections in that regard, too. The activity up here in MN and SD seems to be more of a Swedish thing, though. There was probably a sharing of navigational information, centering around Christendom.

william smith
4/16/2014 11:37:49 am

Gunn
I also felt the KRS had a Swedish connection because of the modern day thoughts of Goths and Norse, however when you look at the time frame and the bond between the Dutch and Portuguese as well as the origin of some of the runes on the KRS I have leaned more toward the Dutch and Portuguese. It is hard to find recorded history which show voyages of primary Swedish people. I know the Swedish island of Gotland seems to point to modern day thought, however in my visit to the island I did not see any history that supported ship building during this time period. I did see the stone ship building jigs that support Viking and pre-Viking ship building, but the carbon dates of material at these sites pre-date 1362 by many years. Keep in mind the hooked X seems to have originated in Denmark. The ships described by the native Americans looked like a big bird with one wing in the air. (I see this as a triangle sail introduced in Europe from Arabia in 1250 AD and incorporated into the Caravel by the Portuguese and Dutch. It would be great to hear your feelings that support the Swedish. Fish trapping by constructing stone V's in water were also a technology from Arabia and used in salt water oceans as well as fresh water streams. Drilling holes in stone to acquire magnetite was also needed when no black sand was available to drag their sword to collect this material. Before this year is out I feel David Johnson will be in a position to explain the area in Europe that contains all the runic letters used on the KRS. Be sure and read the treaty between Spain and Portugal dated 1494, especially section 3 of this treaty, then ask yourself why would they have this process for claiming new land. (Build a tower on the east coast and place a marker 370 leagues on a pole line west of this tower) One league is approximately 3 miles. (The KRS is at the 45 degree lat. north, the Newport Tower is on the 41 degree lat. north, however the distance between pole lines at the KRS or 45 degree lat. is very close to 370 league's.

Gunn link
4/18/2014 12:15:41 pm

Well, the KRS exploring party consisted of people who came from in and around Sweden, according to the message itself. Several persons went into this before on this blog, trying to pin down where the men came from.

Admittedly, much of my belief about Swedes coming here stems from the types of medieval weapons found up here over the past few hundred years. Many of these are at the Runestone Museum. I wish they would commission a metallurgic study of these weapons, for which other similar examples exist in Swedish museums, if I'm not mistaken.

Also, there is the lovely, aged depiction of the sailing craft in rock near Copper Harbor, MI, at the end of a long peninsula on Lake Superior. This is different from the "winged" sail you described. Indeed, the obviously very aged depiction of the sailing ship is an EXACT replica of Norse-type craft from the period of the KRS...approximately. Look at the page on my meager website, above, which shows both the unmistakably Norse ship and a bear...something to look out for back then! Especially if grizzlies occupied the region. Look at the ship closely. You will see snake heads and even snake eyes. If I were to attempt to write and submit a peer review on the subject of stoneholes and the KRS, I would be sure to focus on this seeming "coincidence." Snake heads were used a lot on Norse ships, maybe even only second to dragon heads. I'm guessing that the ship depicted in rock is showing a very real ship that came inland sailing westward, until reaching near Duluth. That's when the people took to the streams in smaller faerings, or canoes.

I have another reason for thinking it was Swedes, mostly, who came here, and this is aside from the KRS or the ship carving, or the metal weaponry. This is a bit more esoteric, perhaps. On my website, above, you will see a large, white, flat-topped rock that I happened upon near Wilmot, SD, near the upper reach of the Whetstone River. Now, this rock has an angled, aged, triangulated, hand chiseled hole in in, from which a slab was removed...probably a bit smaller than the KRS. But now here's the esoteric, mysterious "coincidence" of it all: I also have featured next to it a rock I found online, from Southern Sweden, that is shaped exactly the same, with the flattened top. But this rock is an actual runestone. Isn't this just a rather bizarre coincidence--like that of the carved ship?

Anyway, William, the activity up here seems to be more representative of Norsemen than Portuguese, I'd venture to say. But again, there was probably a sharing of mapping information, such as the probable case with post-Templar Columbus, especially considering his Portuguese connections and those of his wife. I imagine that the newly Christianized Norse and the post-Templar-Portuguese were sharing mapping knowledge, which included the Newport Tower and the region up here.

Let me know if you think we should attempt to clear anything else up. Great debating with you, fellow believer in stoneholes!

Reply
william smith
4/19/2014 04:03:53 pm

Gunn - I do like debating with you because you explain where you are coming from and why you feel so strong about your theory. In addition we have a common belief that the KRS is authentic.
I also have a large flat rock found on my farm in Ohio. It is called The Ohio Rock.
I have looked at the ship carved in upper Mich. and agree it is likely part of your great circle waterway. It is like the stone canoe explained by the Indian chief that went from west to east to explain the new laws of the land to the five eastern tribes. It is also like the small fishing boats that accompanied the Portuguese Caravel. It has sails and would carry up to 8 people. Normally 4 of these would be with each mother ship.
The runic letters are from the Denmark area according to the latest findings of the hooked X and other corrected translation on the KRS by David Johnson. The Goths and Norse explained on the KRS can not be geographically explained in todays boundary's, they must fit the 1362 and 1472 time frame. A modern day name for these groups would be Danes and Portuguese. The Danes consisted of northern Germans. For the record Christopher Columbus was Portuguese. The late Manual DaSilva proved this with DNA. His book with the same title ( Christopher Columbus was Portuguese) is well worth the read. I sent some information to Mel Lebert (Park Supervisor at Kensington) for their annual research meeting next weekend.
Keep up the good work, however the only item in the Alexandria museum that may have been part of the KRS crew is the whetstone found by Steve Hilgren.

Reply

Your comment will be posted after it is approved.


Leave a Reply.

    Blog
    Picture

    Author

    I am an author and researcher focusing on pop culture, science, and history. Bylines: New Republic, Esquire, Slate, etc. There's more about me in the About Jason tab.

    Become a Patron!
    Tweets by JasonColavito
    Picture

    Newsletters

    Enter your email below to subscribe to my newsletter for updates on my latest projects, blog posts, and activities, and subscribe to Culture & Curiosities, my Substack newsletter.

    Categories

    All
    Alternative Archaeology
    Alternative Archaeology
    Alternative History
    Alternative History
    America Unearthed
    Ancient Aliens
    Ancient Astronauts
    Ancient History
    Ancient Texts
    Ancient Texts
    Archaeology
    Atlantis
    Conspiracies
    Giants
    Habsburgs
    Horror
    King Arthur
    Knights Templar
    Lovecraft
    Mythology
    Occult
    Popular Culture
    Popular Culture
    Projects
    Pyramids
    Racism
    Science
    Skepticism
    Ufos
    Weird Old Art
    Weird Things
    White Nationalism

    Terms & Conditions

    Please read all applicable terms and conditions before posting a comment on this blog. Posting a comment constitutes your agreement to abide by the terms and conditions linked herein.

    Archives

    June 2025
    May 2025
    April 2025
    March 2025
    February 2025
    January 2025
    December 2024
    November 2024
    October 2024
    September 2024
    August 2024
    July 2024
    June 2024
    May 2024
    April 2024
    March 2024
    February 2024
    January 2024
    December 2023
    November 2023
    October 2023
    September 2023
    August 2023
    July 2023
    June 2023
    May 2023
    April 2023
    March 2023
    February 2023
    January 2023
    December 2022
    November 2022
    October 2022
    September 2022
    August 2022
    July 2022
    June 2022
    May 2022
    April 2022
    March 2022
    February 2022
    January 2022
    December 2021
    November 2021
    October 2021
    September 2021
    August 2021
    July 2021
    June 2021
    May 2021
    April 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    October 2020
    September 2020
    August 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    January 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    June 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    February 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    February 2014
    January 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013
    August 2013
    July 2013
    June 2013
    May 2013
    April 2013
    March 2013
    February 2013
    January 2013
    December 2012
    November 2012
    October 2012
    September 2012
    August 2012
    July 2012
    June 2012
    May 2012
    April 2012
    March 2012
    February 2012
    January 2012
    December 2011
    November 2011
    October 2011
    September 2011
    August 2011
    July 2011
    June 2011
    May 2011
    April 2011
    March 2011
    February 2011
    January 2011
    December 2010
    November 2010
    October 2010
    September 2010
    August 2010
    July 2010
    June 2010
    May 2010
    April 2010
    March 2010
    February 2010

    RSS Feed

Picture
Home  |  Blog  |  Books  | Contact  |  About Jason | Terms & Conditions
© 2010-2025 Jason Colavito. All rights reserved.

  • Home
  • Blog
  • Books
    • Jimmy: The Secret Life of James Dean >
      • Jimmy Excerpt
      • Jimmy in the Media
      • James Dean's Scrapbook
      • James Dean's Love Letters
      • The Amazing James Dean Hoax!
      • James Dean, The Human Ashtray
      • James Dean and Marlon Brando
      • The Curse of James Dean's Porsche
    • Legends of the Pyramids
    • The Mound Builder Myth
    • Jason and the Argonauts
    • Cult of Alien Gods >
      • Contents
      • Excerpt
      • Image Gallery
    • Foundations of Atlantis
    • Knowing Fear >
      • Contents
      • Excerpt
      • Image Gallery
    • Hideous Bit of Morbidity >
      • Contents
      • Excerpt
      • Image Gallery
    • Cthulhu in World Mythology >
      • Excerpt
      • Image Gallery
      • Necronomicon Fragments
      • Oral Histories
    • Fiction >
      • Short Stories
      • Free Fiction
    • JasonColavito.com Books >
      • Faking History
      • Unearthing the Truth
      • Critical Companion to Ancient Aliens
      • Studies in Ancient Astronautics (Series) >
        • Theosophy on Ancient Astronauts
        • Pyramidiots!
        • Edison's Conquest of Mars
      • Fiction Anthologies >
        • Unseen Horror >
          • Contents
          • Excerpt
        • Moon Men! >
          • Contents
      • The Orphic Argonautica >
        • Contents
        • Excerpt
      • The Faust Book >
        • Contents
        • Excerpt
      • Classic Reprints
      • eBook Minis
    • Free eBooks >
      • Origin of the Space Gods
      • Ancient Atom Bombs
      • Golden Fleeced
      • Ancient America
      • Horror & Science
  • Articles
    • Newsletter >
      • Volumes 1-10 Archive >
        • Volume 1 Archive
        • Volume 2 Archive
        • Volume 3 Archive
        • Volume 4 Archive
        • Volume 5 Archive
        • Volume 6 Archive
        • Volume 7 Archive
        • Volume 8 Archive
        • Volume 9 Archive
        • Volume 10 Archive
      • Volumes 11-20 Archive >
        • Volume 11 Archive
        • Volume 12 Archive
        • Volume 13 Archive
        • Volume 14 Archive
        • Volume 15 Archive
        • Volume 16 Archive
        • Volume 17 Archive
        • Volume 18 Archive
        • Volume 19 Archive
        • Volume 20 Archive
      • Volumes 21-30 Archive >
        • Volume 21 Archive
        • Volume 22 Archive
        • Volume 23 Archive
        • Volume 24 Archive
        • Volume 25 Archive
        • Volume 26 Archive
    • Television Reviews >
      • Ancient Aliens Reviews
      • In Search of Aliens Reviews
      • America Unearthed
      • Pirate Treasure of the Knights Templar
      • Search for the Lost Giants
      • Forbidden History Reviews
      • Expedition Unknown Reviews
      • Legends of the Lost
      • Unexplained + Unexplored
      • Rob Riggle: Global Investigator
      • Ancient Apocalypse
    • Book Reviews
    • Galleries >
      • Bad Archaeology
      • Ancient Civilizations >
        • Ancient Egypt
        • Ancient Greece
        • Ancient Near East
        • Ancient Americas
      • Supernatural History
      • Book Image Galleries
    • Videos
    • Collection: Ancient Alien Fraud >
      • Chariots of the Gods at 50
      • Secret History of Ancient Astronauts
      • Of Atlantis and Aliens
      • Aliens and Ancient Texts
      • Profiles in Ancient Astronautics >
        • Erich von Däniken
        • Robert Temple
        • Giorgio Tsoukalos
        • David Childress
      • Blunders in the Sky
      • The Case of the False Quotes
      • Alternative Authors' Quote Fraud
      • David Childress & the Aliens
      • Faking Ancient Art in Uzbekistan
      • Intimations of Persecution
      • Zecharia Sitchin's World
      • Jesus' Alien Ancestors?
      • Extraterrestrial Evolution?
    • Collection: Skeptic Magazine >
      • America Before Review
      • Native American Discovery of Europe
      • Interview: Scott Sigler
      • Golden Fleeced
      • Oh the Horror
      • Discovery of America
      • Supernatural Television
      • Review of Civilization One
      • Who Lost the Middle Ages
      • Charioteer of the Gods
    • Collection: Ancient History >
      • Prehistoric Nuclear War
      • The China Syndrome
      • Atlantis, Mu, and the Maya
      • Easter Island Exposed
      • Who Built the Sphinx?
      • Who Built the Great Pyramid?
      • Archaeological Cover Up?
    • Collection: The Lovecraft Legacy >
      • Pauwels, Bergier, and Lovecraft
      • Lovecraft in Bergier
      • Lovecraft and Scientology
    • Collection: UFOs >
      • Alien Abduction at the Outer Limits
      • Aliens and Anal Probes
      • Ultra-Terrestrials and UFOs
      • Rebels, Queers, and Aliens
    • Scholomance: The Devil's School
    • Prehistory of Chupacabra
    • The Templars, the Holy Grail, & Henry Sinclair
    • Magicians of the Gods Review
    • The Curse of the Pharaohs
    • The Antediluvian Pyramid Myth
    • Whitewashing American Prehistory
    • James Dean's Cursed Porsche
  • The Library
    • Ancient Mysteries >
      • Ancient Texts >
        • Mesopotamian Texts >
          • Eridu Genesis
          • Atrahasis Epic
          • Epic of Gilgamesh
          • Kutha Creation Legend
          • Babylonian Creation Myth
          • Descent of Ishtar
          • Resurrection of Marduk
          • Berossus
          • Comparison of Antediluvian Histories
        • Egyptian Texts >
          • The Shipwrecked Sailor
          • Dream Stela of Thutmose IV
          • The Papyrus of Ani
          • Classical Accounts of the Pyramids
          • Inventory Stela
          • Manetho
          • Eratosthenes' King List
          • The Story of Setna
          • Leon of Pella
          • Diodorus on Egyptian History
          • On Isis and Osiris
          • Famine Stela
          • Old Egyptian Chronicle
          • The Book of Sothis
          • Horapollo
          • Al-Maqrizi's King List
        • Teshub and the Dragon
        • Hermetica >
          • The Three Hermeses
          • Kore Kosmou
          • Corpus Hermeticum
          • The Asclepius
          • The Emerald Tablet
          • Hermetic Fragments
          • Prologue to the Kyranides
          • The Secret of Creation
          • Ancient Alphabets Explained
          • Prologue to Ibn Umayl's Silvery Water
          • Book of the 24 Philosophers
          • Aurora of the Philosophers
        • Hesiod's Theogony
        • Periplus of Hanno
        • Zoroastrian Fatal Winter
        • Ctesias' Indica
        • Sanchuniathon
        • Sima Qian
        • Syncellus's Enoch Fragments
        • The Book of Enoch
        • Slavonic Enoch
        • Sepher Yetzirah
        • Fragments of Artapanus
        • Tacitus' Germania
        • De Dea Syria
        • Aelian's Various Histories
        • Julius Africanus' Chronography
        • Fragments of Bruttius
        • Eusebius' Chronicle
        • Chinese Accounts of Rome
        • Ancient Chinese Automaton
        • The Orphic Argonautica
        • Fragments of Panodorus
        • Annianus on the Watchers
        • The Watchers and Antediluvian Wisdom
      • Medieval Texts >
        • Medieval Legends of Ancient Egypt >
          • Medieval Pyramid Lore
          • John Malalas on Ancient Egypt
          • Fragments of Abenephius
          • Akhbar al-zaman
          • Ibrahim ibn Wasif Shah
          • Murtada ibn al-‘Afif
          • Al-Maqrizi on the Pyramids
          • Al-Suyuti on the Pyramids
        • The Hunt for Noah's Ark
        • Byzantine World Chronicle
        • Isidore of Seville
        • Book of Liang: Fusang
        • Chronicle to 724
        • Agobard on Magonia
        • Pseudo-Diocles Fragmentum
        • Book of Thousands
        • Voyage of Saint Brendan
        • Power of Art and of Nature
        • Travels of Sir John Mandeville
        • Yazidi Revelation and Black Book
        • Al-Biruni on the Great Flood
        • Voyage of the Zeno Brothers
        • The Kensington Runestone (Hoax)
        • Islamic Discovery of America
        • Popol Vuh
        • The Aztec Creation Myth
      • Lost Civilizations >
        • Atlantis >
          • Plato's Atlantis Dialogues >
            • Timaeus
            • Critias
          • Fragments on Atlantis
          • Panchaea: The Other Atlantis
          • Eumalos on Atlantis (Hoax)
          • Gómara on Atlantis
          • Atlantis as Biblical History
          • Sardinia and Atlantis
          • Atlantis and Nimrod
          • Santorini and Atlantis
          • The Mound Builders and Atlantis
          • Donnelly's Atlantis
          • Atlantis in Morocco
          • Atlantis and Hanno's Periplus
          • Atlantis and the Sea Peoples
          • W. Scott-Elliot >
            • The Story of Atlantis
            • The Lost Lemuria
          • The Lost Atlantis
          • Atlantis in Africa
          • How I Found Atlantis (Hoax)
          • Termier on Atlantis
          • The Critias and Minoan Crete
          • Rebuttal to Termier
          • Further Responses to Termier
          • Flinders Petrie on Atlantis
          • Amazing New Light (Hoax)
        • Lost Cities >
          • Miscellaneous Lost Cities
          • The Seven Cities
          • The Lost City of Paititi
          • Manuscript 512
          • The Idolatrous City of Iximaya (Hoax)
          • The 1885 Moberly Lost City Hoax
          • The Elephants of Paredon (Hoax)
        • OOPARTs
        • Oronteus Finaeus Antarctica Map
        • Caucasians in Panama
        • Jefferson's Excavation
        • Fictitious Discoveries in America
        • Against Diffusionism
        • Tunnels Under Peru
        • The Parahyba Inscription (Hoax)
        • Mound Builders
        • Gunung Padang
        • Tales of Enchanted Islands
        • The 1907 Ancient World Map Hoax
        • The 1909 Grand Canyon Hoax
        • The Interglacial Period
        • Solving Oak Island
      • Religious Conspiracies >
        • Pantera, Father of Jesus?
        • Toledot Yeshu
        • Peter of les Vaux-de-Cernay on Cathars
        • Testimony of Jean de Châlons
        • Rosslyn Chapel and the 'Prentice's Pillar
        • The Many Wives of Jesus
        • Templar Infiltration of Labor
        • Louis Martin & the Holy Bloodline
        • The Life of St. Issa (Hoax)
        • On the Person of Jesus Christ
      • Giants in the Earth >
        • Fossil Origins of Myths >
          • Fossil Teeth and Bones of Elephants
          • Fossil Elephants
          • Fossil Bones of Teutobochus
          • Fossil Mammoths and Giants
          • Giants' Bones Dug Out of the Earth
          • Fossils and the Supernatural
          • Fossils, Myth, and Pseudo-History
          • Man During the Stone Age
          • Fossil Bones and Giants
          • Mastodon, Mammoth, and Man
          • American Elephant Myths
          • The Mammoth and the Flood
          • Fossils and Myth
          • Fossil Origin of the Cyclops
          • History of Paleontology
        • Fragments on Giants
        • Manichaean Book of Giants
        • Geoffrey on British Giants
        • Alfonso X's Hermetic History of Giants
        • Boccaccio and the Fossil 'Giant'
        • Book of Howth
        • Purchas His Pilgrimage
        • Edmond Temple's 1827 Giant Investigation
        • The Giants of Sardinia
        • Giants and the Sons of God
        • The Magnetism of Evil
        • Tertiary Giants
        • Smithsonian Giant Reports
        • Early American Giants
        • The Giant of Coahuila
        • Jewish Encyclopedia on Giants
        • Index of Giants
        • Newspaper Accounts of Giants
        • Lanier's A Book of Giants
      • Science and History >
        • Halley on Noah's Comet
        • The Newport Tower
        • Iron: The Stone from Heaven
        • Ararat and the Ark
        • Pyramid Facts and Fancies
        • Argonauts before Homer
        • The Deluge
        • Crown Prince Rudolf on the Pyramids
        • Old Mythology in New Apparel
        • Blavatsky on Dinosaurs
        • Teddy Roosevelt on Bigfoot
        • Devil Worship in France
        • Maspero's Review of Akhbar al-zaman
        • Arabic Names of Egyptian Kings
        • The Holy Grail as Lucifer's Crown Jewel
        • The Mutinous Sea
        • The Rock Wall of Rockwall
        • Fabulous Zoology
        • The Origins of Talos
        • Mexican Mythology
        • Chinese Pyramids
        • Maqrizi's Names of the Pharaohs
      • Extreme History >
        • Roman Empire Hoax
        • America Known to the Ancients
        • American Antiquities
        • American Cataclysms
        • England, the Remnant of Judah
        • Historical Chronology of the Mexicans
        • Maspero on the Predynastic Sphinx
        • Vestiges of the Mayas
        • Ragnarok: The Age of Fire and Gravel
        • Origins of the Egyptian People
        • The Secret Doctrine >
          • Volume 1: Cosmogenesis
          • Volume 2: Anthropogenesis
        • Phoenicians in America
        • The Electric Ark
        • Traces of European Influence
        • Prince Henry Sinclair
        • Pyramid Prophecies
        • Templars of Ancient Mexico
        • Chronology and the "Riddle of the Sphinx"
        • The Faith of Ancient Egypt
        • Remarkable Discoveries Within the Sphinx (Hoax)
        • Spirit of the Hour in Archaeology
        • Book of the Damned
        • Great Pyramid As Noah's Ark
        • The Shaver Mystery >
          • Lovecraft and the Deros
          • Richard Shaver's Proofs
    • Alien Encounters >
      • US Government Ancient Astronaut Files >
        • Fortean Society and Columbus
        • Inquiry into Shaver and Palmer
        • The Skyfort Document
        • Whirling Wheels
        • Denver Ancient Astronaut Lecture
        • Soviet Search for Lemuria
        • Visitors from Outer Space
        • Unidentified Flying Objects (Abstract)
        • "Flying Saucers"? They're a Myth
        • UFO Hypothesis Survival Questions
        • Air Force Academy UFO Textbook
        • The Condon Report on Ancient Astronauts
        • Atlantis Discovery Telegrams
        • Ancient Astronaut Society Telegram
        • Noah's Ark Cables
        • The Von Daniken Letter
        • CIA Psychic Probe of Ancient Mars
        • CIA Search for the Ark of the Covenant
        • Scott Wolter Lawsuit
        • UFOs in Ancient China
        • CIA Report on Noah's Ark
        • CIA Noah's Ark Memos
        • Congressional Ancient Aliens Testimony
        • Ancient Astronaut and Nibiru Email
        • Congressional Ancient Mars Hearing
        • House UFO Hearing
      • Ancient Extraterrestrials >
        • Premodern UFO Sightings
        • The Moon Hoax
        • Inhabitants of Other Planets
        • The Fall of the Sky
        • Blavatsky on Ancient Astronauts
        • The Stanzas of Dzyan (Hoax)
        • Aerolites and Religion
        • What Is Theosophy?
        • Plane of Ether
        • The Adepts from Venus
      • A Message from Mars
      • Saucer Mystery Solved?
      • Orville Wright on UFOs
      • Interdimensional Flying Saucers
      • Poltergeist UFOs
      • Flying Saucers Are Real
      • Report on UFOs
    • The Supernatural >
      • The Devils of Loudun
      • Sublime and Beautiful
      • Voltaire on Vampires
      • Demonology and Witchcraft
      • Thaumaturgia
      • Bulgarian Vampires
      • Religion and Evolution
      • Transylvanian Superstitions
      • Defining a Zombie
      • Dread of the Supernatural
      • Vampires
      • Werewolves and Vampires and Ghouls
      • Science and Fairy Stories
      • The Cursed Car
    • Classic Fiction >
      • Lucian's True History
      • Some Words with a Mummy
      • The Coming Race
      • King Solomon's Mines
      • An Inhabitant of Carcosa
      • The Xipéhuz
      • Lot No. 249
      • The Novel of the Black Seal
      • The Island of Doctor Moreau
      • Pharaoh's Curse
      • Edison's Conquest of Mars
      • The Lost Continent
      • Count Magnus
      • The Mysterious Stranger
      • The Wendigo
      • Sredni Vashtar
      • The Lost World
      • The Red One
      • H. P. Lovecraft >
        • Dagon
        • The Call of Cthulhu
        • History of the Necronomicon
        • At the Mountains of Madness
        • Lovecraft's Library in 1932
      • The Skeptical Poltergeist
      • The Corpse on the Grating
      • The Second Satellite
      • Queen of the Black Coast
      • A Martian Odyssey
    • Classic Genre Movies
    • Miscellaneous Documents >
      • The Balloon-Hoax
      • A Problem in Greek Ethics
      • The Migration of Symbols
      • The Gospel of Intensity
      • De Profundis
      • The Life and Death of Crown Prince Rudolf
      • The Bathtub Hoax
      • Crown Prince Rudolf's Letters
      • Position of Viking Women
      • Employment of Homosexuals
    • Free Classic Pseudohistory eBooks
  • About Jason
    • Biography
    • Jason in the Media
    • Contact Jason
    • About JasonColavito.com
    • Terms and Conditions
  • Search