Fringe History Claims Spur Opposition to "America Unearthed" Permit Application in North Carolina

3/14/2014

Fringe history might be good for TV ratings, but it isn’t good for convincing the guardians of America’s historic sites to let you use those sites to support outrageous ideas. That’s the lesson America Unearthed executive producer Maria Awes learned this week when she applied last week for a permit to shoot at Judaculla Rock, a sacred Cherokee site in North Carolina. The site has been the property of Jackson County since 1959, and while open to the public free of charge, government permission is required to film on the site.

Awes requested permission a week before the scheduled shoot, but her request stirred opposition from Pisgah National Forest archaeologist Scott Ashcraft, who also serves as the head of N.C. Rock Art, according to an article in The Sylva Herald. Ashcraft felt betrayed after his involvement with America Unearthed turned sour.

Ashcarft works for the U.S. Forest Service, which America Unearthed accused of conspiring to suppress the work of Scott Wolter in its pilot episode in 2012 when the Forest Service denied Committee Films permission to shoot at the Track Rock site in Georgia.

On Monday Ashcraft sent an email to Jackson County officials urging the county to exercise careful scrutiny of Committee Films’ request to film at the site based on what he described as the program’s record of “sensationalized, unscientific programming” that would likely depict the ancient site in a false light.

Aschraft had been working with Committee Films on an upcoming episode of America Unearthed, but he told Jackson County Manager Chuck Wooten that he severed all ties with the production company after discovering that America Unearthed was intentionally developing a narrative designed to misinform viewers. He said that “they were purposely under-informing, misleading and misdirecting me along the way” to force him into supporting a predetermined narrative over his attempts to “push through their veil of misinformation,” according to documents obtained by the Herald.

Keith Parker, whose family had owned the rock before 1959 and has been involved in preservation efforts for decades, also told the county that he wanted Committee Films barred from the site.

Awes told the Sylva Herald that the county had no reason to worry about the show’s depiction of Judaculla Rock, and she promised that the program would conclude that the rock was a Cherokee or pre-Cherokee artifact, though only after examining “other theories.”

According to Cherokee legend, the carvings on Judaculla Rock are the work of a giant for whom the rock is named and provide instructions for entering the spirit world. Archaeologists believe that the petroglyphs and pock-marks were carved in the Late Woodland or Mississippian periods, but their meaning is unknown. The rock has spawned some fringe theories about trans-Atlantic contact because the giant Judaculla was said to have slanted eyes like Asians. Others have speculated on various Old World origins for the carvings, which archaeologists speculate may have been a map or an astronomical chart.

But take a gander at what Awes thinks America Unearthed does:

“We present ideas about things to get people interested about history. It’s not to get people to look at things one way or another.”

I laughed out loud after reading that line since every episode ends with Scott Wolter issuing a conclusion designed to convince viewers that his investigation has yielded tangible results, regardless of whether they factually do so.

The county manager was scheduled to decide on the permit yesterday. His secretary told me that she did not know what he decided, and he was not available this morning for comment. I left voice mail, but Wooten has not yet returned my call. The Sylva Herald told me he has not returned their calls or emails on the issue either. I will update this post later today once the information has been released, either to me or to the Herald.

Update: As of close of business today, Jackson County Manager Chuck Wooten still had not responded to my request for information, and the county had not yet made public whether it issued a permit.

41 Comments

B L

3/14/2014 05:00:41 am

It's a glorious thing when chickens come home to roost.

Steve St C

3/14/2014 01:26:53 pm

This is perfect. Jason's wanna-be academics have already decided that AU will not be issued a permit to film there LONG BEFORE there is any evidence to do so.

BL wrote - "It's a glorious thing when chickens come home to roost."

Then BL had to add to it - "…their own ineptitude has resulted in blocked access to interesting sites" as though it's a fait accompli. Have they been blocked BL? When and where did you learn to predict the future? Do you have a Ph.D. in predicting the future? If not, why should we take your prognosticating seriously?

abductedbyaliens has to chime in gleefully as though he already knows the outcome, already has the evidence.

Matt MC in his utter arrogance predicts that he "saw this one coming" and the show won't "go beyond the third season because of this reason." Why not wait for the facts Matt MC? Oh hell, who needs them? This bunch doesn't need facts before they make up their minds. Wow that sounds familiar, doesn't it? Oh, right. It's exactly what Jason's acolytes are busy accuse the diffusionists of.

SDrew and Uncle Ron chimed in with equally gleeful certainty of the outcome. Don't bother waiting on the facts boys. You're so much smart than the facts.

I promise you will be sorely disappointed next week.

Jason Colavito link

3/14/2014 01:35:23 pm

I believe that for the most part they were referring to the difficulties caused by developing negative relationships with officials and scholars, not that they know the permit would be denied. In fact, I would imagine the permit will be issued because I can't see any compelling government interest in preventing access. Personally, I don't believe the government should use ideology as a litmus tests for permits since that leaves open too much room for censorship.

Zookeeper

3/14/2014 02:24:56 pm

Please don't feed the Troll!

3/14/2014 04:07:11 pm

Really?? That's an interesting take on this statement by BL, "their own ineptitude has resulted in blocked access to interesting sites." Oddly, I read that as BL stating that he already know from your writeup that AU would not be permitted to film the site. Wow, how could I have formed that conclusion?

Maybe it's just me, but when BL said, "resulted in blocked access" I thought he might have meant it resulted in blocked access.

And when SDrew said, "It's about time. One must assume that other ancient (U.S.) sites will follow suit," I must be mistaken in thinking that he believed the show would not get into the sites they wanted to film and that other ancient (U.S.) sites would follow suit. Wow, how could I have formed that conclusion?

And when SDrew said, "…I will miss the obnoxious, globe-trotting man…" did he somehow mean that there were "difficulties caused by developing negative relationships with officials and scholars"? Or did he mean that AU would go off the air as Matt Mc had arrogantly decided above SDrew's comment? I suggest the later.

I guess your interpretation of the meaning of those who are predicting the facts before the facts are in is also open to interpretation, Jason.

But I'm sure all this is in violation of your new blog comment rules, so I'll let you and your acolytes get back to your regularly scheduled reputation trashing.

Matt Mc

3/15/2014 12:49:15 am

Jason got it right. I am referring to past negative relationships that the show has developed. I am basing my assessment on past shows like UFO HUNTERS which successfully burned enough bridges that filming permits and guest where harder to come by. I did see this one coming, as more guest come forward and say they are not happy how the show presents them and that their comments have been altered to leave out things they wanted to say (which has happened). Filming permits are the same way and I bet it has happened already with AU, since on the serpent mound episode they did not go into the park and they filmed only on the rim of the Grand Canyon which does not require a filming permit.

So the facts as the show that former guest are unhappy with the show and how it used footage of them, there is a good possibility and several times in show it has been stated that access has not been granted. These are the facts Steve, now we can speculate (in a manner much less than the show does for its theories) that since this is happening and has already happened that it will happen more and more unless the producers change the way they present things. I hope that the producers do change their presentation and think they could with fantastic results. Now that could be a possibility who knows. The course of history with shows like AU says that a 3 to 4 season run is very common, AA is the exception and there are always exceptions, and if you have noticed AA seldom uses more than stock or already filmed footage of location shot outside a studio, in other words they have lowered production costs.

Anyway I feel my statement was based upon my experience on working on similar style shows for several decades and if you think that is arrogant fine, I could really less.

3/17/2014 05:48:18 am

Steve St C....I don't need a PhD in predicting the future to know that sooner rather than later the name Scott Wolter will become a punchline, and that fewer and fewer people will give him the time of day. Likewise, I don't need a PhD in history to know that you are not the descendant of Jesus or that Henry Sinclair never came to America. Come to think of it, I don't have a PhD in comedy either, but I sure do find your rants to be hilarious.

Jonathan

3/14/2014 05:11:44 am

I was wondering when this would happen. I look forward to reading about further developments.

3/14/2014 05:22:36 am

Of course Committee Films and America Unearthed won't be admitting to the fans that their own ineptitude has resulted in blocked access to interesting sites. So, Scott Wolter will once again be harping about a vast academic and governmental conspiracy to keep him from getting to the truth. Round and round it goes.

abductedbyaliens

3/14/2014 10:37:58 am

You're 100% correct. Scott now has "proof" that his knowledge of the "real truth" is being suppressed. I can just see the episode: Scott is standing outside the park when he gets a phone call telling him he's barred from going near the rock. He then launches into a diatribe about how they don't want him to reveal evidence to the pubic.

3/14/2014 05:32:47 am

I saw this one coming. I am glad Jason was able to find out about this information before the show was aired. Not uncommon with shows like AU, the reputation of the show and its presentation is beginning to catch up with it. Not uncommon and I won't be surprised if the show does not go beyond the third season because of this reason. Really it is not that uncommon either and other fringe shows had suffered the same fate because of not being able to acquire filming permits.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out when the episode airs in the fall.

Prone

3/14/2014 05:52:59 am

So it turns out that if you misrepresent academics, push a decidedly anti-academic narrative, accuse the government of a vast conspiracy to suppress you and present ridiculous and/or discredited fringe theories as equal to actual archaeology and science; the academics and the government aren't very willing to help you?

Shocking. I am outraged. It took me four takes to type this.

RLewis

3/14/2014 06:29:07 am

I'm actually torn about this. Although I loathe the way AU (and other fringe scientists) spin and trample evidence and known facts, I don't believe it's usually a good idea to try to suppress their access to government property (of course, assuming it doesn't promote vandalism). Let them promote the ridiculous ideas. Sooner or later, the facts will present themselves (in this blog or other outlets) and the public can see just how flimsy all of their claims are.
Like AA, if you just let them keep talking their BS becomes more and more obvious as they rehash/repackage old claims and spin in circles.

3/14/2014 06:34:31 am

One things I think they (as in the parks) should be concerned about is shows like this could encourage vandalism much like the AA theorists who recently did some damage in to the great pyramids

http://www.ktoo.org/2014/02/21/men-who-vandalized-egyptian-pyramid-to-prove-theory-face-charges/

SDrew

3/14/2014 07:30:56 am

It's about time. One must assume that other ancient (U.S.) sites will follow suit.

I will miss the obnoxious, globe-trotting man with the schoolboy's backpack though - the show almost always makes me laugh.

Uncle Ron

3/14/2014 09:52:48 am

Here are some sample comments from readers of The Sylvia Herald in response to the article Jason referenced above regarding Scott Ashcroft:

“How exciting for Jackson County to get national attention through an interesting and reputable format , The History 2 Channel. This is a professional company that would certainly respect the site not only physically as they film but also offer current and other intriguing theories.”

“I personally find the show to be exactly as the producer described, an effective way to generate interest in [A}merican history.”

“…supposed authorities on such subjects want to censor almost anything that disagrees with their set-in-stone textbooks and theories.. Hey, it's cheaper to hide the truth than to change textbooks, right.”

(Sigh)

3/14/2014 09:57:17 am

I'll never understand the textbook argument. Textbook manufacturers make superficial changes every 2-3 years to make sure that students have to buy new books and can't keep reusing old editions. They'd *love* to have a reason to force schools to buy all new books, such as an important new theory.

Titus pullo

3/15/2014 05:13:45 am

Great points jason. And as a dad with two teenagers, the books today are a mess of facts, graphics, tables, ad graphics. I'm serious their text books in math or chemistry, earth science, social studies and so crammed with every possible self serving political groups agenda their teachers don't use them. Basic textbooks in say trig or physics from the 70s were more effective.

Rev. Phil Gotsch

3/14/2014 11:18:31 am

The question of who "owns" history -- and its interpretation -- is THE question under discussion …

As to who "own" (controls access to) particular PLACES is a different matter, of course ...

3/14/2014 01:09:59 pm

No, Phil. The question under discussion is under what circumstances, and by what method, fringe ideas should be introduced into a discussion that heretofore has had the legitimacy of empirically structured enquiry leading to logical conclusions. To put it another way, what requirements does the fringe historian have to meet in order to be allowed into the discussion in the first place?

Nobody owns history. History is the truth even if we don’t know the entire truth as yet. To the degree that we do not know the entire truth we are obliged to be very specific about why we are suggesting an explanation for what is unknown or an interpretation of known facts. The more encompassing and cohesive and logical the explanation, the more likely it is to be accepted as “true”. It is the burden of the alternative historian, when presenting his theory, to show that it meets these criteria as well as or better than the accepted one and to explain how the accepted theory is in error. If his theory proves to be better at explaining the available facts it will become accepted and the old theory will fall by the wayside.

To suggest that every idea (and “interpretation”) is equally legitimate and should be taken seriously is intellectual anarchy. America Unearthed, and its ilk, do not even attempt to meet the above requirements. They deceive the ignorant with their method of presentation, faulty logic, distortions, and outright lies. They do not deserve to be treated as equals to legitimate scholars who are seeking the truth.

3/14/2014 03:27:33 pm

"Uncle Ron" --

You're tilting at a windmill … I have NOWHERE suggested or implied that "every idea and 'interpretation' [of history] is equally legitimate and should be taken seriously …"

3/14/2014 01:29:58 pm

Jason,
Have you had any direct contact with Scott Ashcraft in the last 6 months, either by email, phone, or otherwise?

3/14/2014 01:32:05 pm

I've never had any contact with him period so far as I can recall.

Dan

3/14/2014 02:21:04 pm

"[S]he promised that the program would conclude that the rock was a Cherokee or pre-Cherokee artifact, though only after examining “other theories.”

I'm pretty certain they'll conclude its "pre-Cherokee", since well, that's exactly what AU is designed to do.

Only Me

3/14/2014 04:29:47 pm

Considering the dustup with "The Spearhead Conspiracy" episode, and the claims made by past guests (Scott Dawson, Joe Rose, etc.), I wonder if the Committee Films' production methods are coming back to bite them. It also makes me wonder if word of mouth may have something to do with this latest development.

There is definitely some potential for backlash against both Scott Wolter and the caretakers of historical sites, depending on who supports which side, but Scott stands to lose more, since it makes future episodes harder to produce without permits or cooperation from the authorities. And it can't be overstated that many, who see Scott the host and Scott the man as one and the same, will probably come to see him as "that conspiracy guy" with an ax to grind.

Maybe he should think about a new contract with a different company?

3/15/2014 12:58:00 am

I think Committee films production style is coming back to haunt them. I do however think it can change all that has to happen is Wolter to express that he thinks that should happen. The Finding Bigfoot cast did so with Ping Pong productions and the producers apologized for what they were doing and change their tactics to something the cast was comfortable with.

As time goes by with this show I find myself thinking the Wolter really has let the producers dictate everything and that he is become more aware of what they are doing. I really do believe he wants the best for the show and wants it to be taken more seriously. Basically he came in and was over is head and took things from the producers at face value. I hope with this future season he takes the time to express to the producers how he feels things should be presented and how a little more honesty in presentation could go a long way.

Michael C. Dunn

3/14/2014 05:51:55 pm

It would be hard to get a whole program out of it without lots of fanciful stuff. A few years ago we visited Judaculla Rock, which is hard to find even with GPS. My then-12 year old daughter said, "We drove all this way just to see a ROCK? So I guess she won't be watching.

Mark E.

3/15/2014 02:59:29 am

Another one, AU and the Holly Grail in Maine: http://bangordailynews.com/2014/03/14/news/midcoast/the-holy-grail-in-maine-history-channel-researchers-theory-touches-off-fresh-debate-about-phippsburg-artifacts/

Gunn Sinclair link

3/15/2014 03:51:06 am

Thanks for the very fresh link!

We can see how these are basically hidden away from the public, based on a "professional" judgement. No need for public input, right? This reminds me of how Minnesota's own top state archaeologist has a predetermined mindset which says absolutely no Europeans came here before the French in the 1600's. It's the hidebound (great word, Phil!) attitude that is uncalled for. I'm going to re-post my comment from another thread-line that I responded to just a bit earlier before I read this current line, about the Us v. Them mentality, which is my feelings for this thread-line, too...and for the material in the link just provided by Mark E.

From other Gunn post: "...a double standard doesn't exist if one recognizes that Wolter purposely focuses on "speculative" material, almost all of which has been "debunked" by the professionals. Notice I didn't put quotation marks around professionals. This is because I, myself, do appreciate the job professionals do...most of the time. There are a few exceptions, as we know.

Wolter focuses on material he sees as being ignored, that he can bring to life a bit for entertainment, yes, and for later debate and study. He makes money doing this. Any scorn seen here for Wolter advocates, in general, reflects an unnecessarily harsh attitude, I think.

The general complaint shouldn't be so much a us v. them thing as it is a matter of attitude when discussing things. I think we can all see the benefits of keeping on open, friendly atmosphere here as we look for history truth--while keeping open minds.

EagleBarra

3/16/2014 10:13:47 am

I enjoyed that the coordinator of NEARA and a skeptic is named Roslyn...

3/15/2014 05:07:40 am

It's public land, they have the right to shoot there as long as they don't interfere with any tourists. This idea that only the right folks should determine access to land the taxpayer has paid for is ridiculous. What's next? To ask ones intent of their views of a site before we allow them to visit it? Does one get asked their views on Custer at the little big horn? Sure AE is probably going to have an alternative take, but even views that you know are wrong have the right to be heard, liberty isn't always perfect but I'll take it over having the experts determine what we can hear or say or film.

3/15/2014 05:29:02 am

Here is a link to the Bureau of Land Management's requirements to film of public land for commercial purposes

http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/more/lands/filming.html

Just so you know in 2000 law was passed by congress and signed into law require all commercial filming on public lands to get permission before shooting. This applies to all commercial filming whether it is a TV show or a Movie. The only exception is for active and breaking news stories since they serve the public interest.

This law does not apply to non commercial filming, so the average person is welcome to film and photograph anything on public land.

The Chief link

3/15/2014 07:02:53 am

Why is it that I need an open mind but no one else does???? Just thinkin' out loud.

3/15/2014 07:26:56 am

I do not think they should be denied permission to film, but I do think it is good that there is some public rebuttal (outside of this blog and the unofficial AU FB page) of the claims the show makes. Hopefully more newspapers will cover the show when it comes to their areas, and they can provide more (and more accurate) perspectives than those presented on AU.

Gunn link

3/15/2014 09:06:30 am

"Awes told the Sylva Herald that the county had no reason to worry about the show’s depiction of Judaculla Rock, and she promised that the program would conclude that the rock was a Cherokee or pre-Cherokee artifact, though only after examining “other theories.”

It seems like this would have been good enough for Ashcraft, who seems to want to be a sort of Sheriff of Nottingham Forest. The parks belong to the people, generally speaking. He should butt-out.

And then there is the reverse, when county parks (others, too) put up public information which is blatantly, historically false; but when it is shown to be false, they are negligent in repairing the damage being done to history.

A well-known park here in MN seems to delight in displaying made-up tourist information, which has been shown to be incorrect. The county officials and local people don't care enough to do anything about it, though. The people in the area, generally speaking, are quite dull.

Maybe this is the region the image of the dumb blonde originated from. Myself, I have very little Scandinavian blood...mostly Templar, I think...perplexedly. Yeah, one would think.

(Browse through the info at my above website for more info about presenting fake history in public parks.)

3/15/2014 09:12:54 am

Ashcraft butted in, Gunn, because he claimed the show lied to him and manipulated him during the interview process. He didn't do it just for the fun of it.

3/15/2014 09:55:40 am

I kind of thought, what with a park in your neck of the woods displaying "information which is blatantly, historically false", you would be happy that Ashcraft would try to protect a sacred site. The fact he refused to be coached into supporting alternative ideas that could damage the image of Judaculla Rock impresses me.

Would you prefer he be "negligent in repairing the damage being done to history", or preserving the legacy of a site for future generations?

The Zookeeper

3/15/2014 02:39:18 pm

Please don't feed the trolls!

3/16/2014 05:31:12 am

I will feed you, nevertheless, Zookeeper, mainly because you seem to be a bad zookeeper, by negative design.

Jason, I would say that Ashcraft took it too personally, and stepped outside his authority. Certain people, in certain jobs, need to be careful not to show personal bias. I'm talking about personal bias. I have said the same thing to you, that you should avoid personal conflicts which then translate into personal bias, because you are a reviewer. Ashcraft should suck it up and not try to dictate to members of the public with his public-given powers. Someone can be unpleasant but still have rights.

Only Me, we're talking about ideology, yes, but also responsibility to the truth. Someone searching for more truth should have a right to these public parks regardless of their ideology. Wolter isn't damaging history by examining ideology--but the aforementioned part here in MN is definitely damaging history, DAILY, CURRENTLY, by the false information they delight in displaying, either out of dullness, or because someone has a sick sense of humor.

In some cases, parks are NOT being responsible to the public, yet they want to dictate who goes in based on ideology? Damage to sites is one issue, blocking certain folks from parks in another issue, and being responsible to the truth WITHIN parks is another issue. They are all valid issues to discuss. The fingers are pointing both ways.

3/16/2014 11:39:48 am

This is where we get into dangerous territory. According to Ashcraft, the producers wanted him to support the ideology they wanted to present on AU, which conflicted with his responsibility to the truth. In exercising his responsibility to the park and preventing any damage to Judaculla Rock in the public's eye, he's petitioning for disapproval of any filming.

So, the conundrum becomes, which is more important? The right to film a historical site, with the possibility that it will be misrepresented and misinformation fed to the viewing audience, or, protecting the site so it's history can be shared, based on current knowledge? It's a decision I certainly don't begrudge Ashcraft.

3/17/2014 05:27:02 am

Yes, we are talking about "responsibility to the truth." But Only Me, comes now the inevitable question "what is truth?"

In the case of the unnamed county park here in MN, actual truth is being ignored while at the same time obviously FAKE information is being given to the public. I tried for a few YEARS now (picked this habit of caps up from VARIKA) to show the locals how DUMB they are for allowing blatantly false information to be projected at the entire world through the little pinpoint of this park. Much of this problem exists because of one person, in my own opinion, which I won't go into here. Click on my name, above for more information about this on-going travesty being perpetrated against we, the citizenry. CLEARLY then, this little park is not being responsible to the truth.

In the case of the other park under discussion here, we have a similar situation where we are concerned about the truth being protected and projected. But here, apparently, there is no existing false history already being projected from the park...that I know of. Rather instead, Wolter wants to examine history possibilities, looking for truth. Has truth already been established at the park? No.

Has truth already been established at the park in MN? Yes, and no. Yes, in that certain persons want the fake information to continue, even though truth is lacking, and no, in that actual, established truth NOT BEING PROJECTED. (Talking about factual water levels.)

I'm saying that the park in MN is ALREADY exhibiting unethical behavior towards history, while Wolter wanting to explore history possibilities in this other park in not unethical, since he's only exploring possibilities.

Perhaps his behavior was seen as unethical by a park official, but again, this then becomes personal bias if acted upon. The park official in this case shouldn't be so concerned about the truth; the park in MN should be, more so, because they are actively projecting FALSE HISTORY from the park.

I see that parks can represent "the bad guys" in this, as well as "the good guys." The fingers point both ways while we look for truth. If these county parks represent the "academic" history perspective in any way, they come up sorely lacking...both of them.

Wolter's attitude is another matter entirely, as is Jason's in this subject. I don't think someone can or should be barred from filming in a public park for seeming to be dishonest. Where's this power come from? Preserving the truth? How funny. How about the BOGUS power to purposely disseminate FAKE history information? Power to the parks?

No...power to the PEOPLE who collectively OWN the parks.