House Science Committee Member Attends Scott Wolter's Investigation of Rockwall "Wall"

5/8/2013

Note: This article has been edited to correct the name of excavation expert Kevin Richeson.

You’ll recall that America Unearthed decamped to Rockwall, Texas to investigate a geological formation called a clastic dike that local residents have tried to represent as a prehistoric artificial wall since its discovery in the nineteenth century. Most recently, local businessmen have tried promoting the formation as the remains of the antediluvian civilization of the pre-Flood giants, a claim that even creationist geologists like John Morris have debunked as categorically untrue. (I have a fuller discussion of the history and geology of the formation here.)

Well, filming is apparently complete, and the Rockwall Herald-Banner is reporting on the production. It’s an enlightening and somewhat depressing article.

Staff writer Emma Mills made a few weird errors in the piece, for example misreporting the wall’s discovery date as 1952 instead of 1852, and it’s somewhat disconcerting that the newspaper ran a fluff piece providing no indication of the results of the investigation, with all parties involved apparently agreeing to hold off on revealing the “truth” until “November sweeps.” I did, however, enjoy the sly bit of commentary Mills inserted into the article, describing America Unearthed as a “documentary-style” program rather than a documentary, even if she got wrong the channel on which it airs (H2, not the History Channel, which changed its name to History years ago, anyway).

Here’s what happened:

…cast and crew of the national television show spent five days tunneling 45 feet down into the earth to uncover a piece of the massive limestone wall-like formation, whose origins have been debated since a group of settlers first discovered it in 1952 (sic).

Now let’s get into what we’ve learned from the article. First, let’s look at the words of Kevin Richeson, described as a local excavation expert:

We know that there are countless rumors surrounding this piece of history, and so our goal here was to bring in the most qualified experts possible and just present the straight scientific facts to the people [watching the show]. (brackets in original)

Ha! Doesn’t Richeson know that the H2 network considers America Unearthed to be “entertainment” and that “facts” take second position to ideology and cash? I know Steve St. Clair reads this blog, and if you’ve followed the comments on my last America Unearthed post, you’ll remember that St. Clair feels that such programs are not obliged to be truthful, nor should audiences expect truth from them. I’ll direct him to Richeson’s comments about what other people who appear on America Unearthed think is happening when they sign up to participate. At least one thinks he’s on there to “present the scientific facts” rather than the most profitable story!

Here’s another bizarre tidbit: The rock wall site is owned by Rob Cameron, who told the newspaper that he had to receive permission from the History Channel (I assume he means Committee Films) to allow guests onto his own land before the production team “had to” cover the site again. (I am not familiar with Texas excavation laws, so I do not know the rules for uncovering rocks in Rockwall.) Those must be some air-tight contracts the production uses. I can’t imagine signing away all rights to access my own land to preserve the secrecy of a digital-tier cable show.

Cameron threw a wrap party to celebrate filming and to give high-ranking dignitaries the chance to tour the wall site. Among the guests was 90-year-old Rep. Ralph Hall (R-TX), the chairman emeritus of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology! (He currently serves on the committee as a regular member, but no longer chairs it.) It shouldn’t surprise me that a member of the science committee is touring an alleged Biblical “giant’s” fortress or outpost of Atlantis; it’s par for the course nowadays. On the plus side, less scrupulous advocates can now assert that there is a U.S. government conspiracy to suppress the truth since a “high ranking government official” visited the site and then it was immediately reburied—to keep the public out! But seriously, the attendance of Rep. Hall belies Wolter’s repeated claim that the U.S. government is working to suppress the truth and block him from conducting research.

Other guests included a number of local dignitaries, including the town’s mayor, David Sweet, and the district attorney, who identified the wall as the central point in forming identity of the town. Here’s what Sweet had to say, and I think it just about sums up the story of the rock wall:

One of the neat things about Rockwall is that, no matter what the truth is, whether it’s man-made or a natural occurrence, it’s always going to be a part of our history. Long after the experts have given us their definitive answers, I think people will continue to speculate and pass down the legends for generations to come.

Think about that: Even after there’s a “definitive” explanation (as though 100 years of geologists and even creationists studying it and declaring it natural wasn’t as close to definitive as science can get) they’ll keep right on making alternative claims. There’s a whiff of anti-elitism in Mayor Sweet’s words, the same distrust of science that led local businessmen to try (and fail) to rope creationists into validating the wall (and thus the town’s identity) when their hand-chosen geological experts failed to return the “right” result years ago. If you don’t like science, try creationism. When creationism failed, New Age believers turned in 2001 to a self-described “psychic” to “channel” information from the spirit realm about the wall and its relationship to Atlantis.

Since the late 1800s, Rockwall residents have been trucking in experts of all stripes with regularity to try to create a case for why their town should be a pre-Flood, pre-Columbian archaeological tourist destination, and to this day they’re still upset that science—and even the fake science of creationism!—fails to play along. Now, it’s Scott Wolter’s turn.

I can’t wait to see what he has to say; I sincerely hope that he’s able to recognize a clastic dike when he sees one.

26 Comments

Christopher Randolph

5/8/2013 05:20:30 am

One wonders if the 1852/1952 thing were a typo, you'd hope that someone wouldn't place "settlers" in 1952.

Just today I received an email to sign a petition against the following:

"Rep. Lamar Smith has drafted a bill that would replace peer review at the National Science Foundation (NSF) with a set of funding criteria chosen and overseen by Congress... and he wants to use it as a model for every federal science agency we have.

Rep. Smith's bill would force the NSF to prove the "worth" of their grants men and women who are politicians, not scientists."

I'll need to look at this more but it sounds very banana republic - having the intellectual mediocrities in Congress making scientific decisions. No doubt a large portion of the academia-hating public will line up behind this as we continue our voluntary societal nose dive.

Varika

5/8/2013 07:50:06 am

...would you happen to have a link to that petition? I'm totally on board with signing it. Seriously.

Kate

5/8/2013 09:19:36 am

I'm with Varika. Please share that petition!

5/8/2013 09:55:08 am

Hopefully this link will work for you:

http://act.watchdog.net/petitions/2901

5/8/2013 01:33:23 pm

Thank you. Signed!

Sean

5/8/2013 12:36:22 pm

It should be noted that many politicians on the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, including Ralph Hall and Lamar Smith, avidly deny the science of climate change. In fact, Rep. Hall believes that Scientists are involved in a grand conspiracy to push climate change for financial gain. I'm guessing he doesn't see the irony in a politician making the accusation of dishonestly for personal or professional gain.

In addition to that position many, like Representative Hall, frequently let their religious views influence their policy positions.

Lamar Smith, who is the committee chair and author of the so-called "High Quality Research Act" is a member of the "Christian Science" movement. For those not familiar with Christian Science here is a brief description: "The religion's adherents, known as Christian Scientists, subscribe to a radical form of philosophical idealism, believing that spiritual reality is the only reality and that the material world is an illusion. This includes the view that sickness and death are illusions caused by mistaken beliefs, and that the sick should be treated by a special form of prayer intended to correct those beliefs, rather than by medicine."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Science

One Christian Science website asks that you watch videos illustrating this belief when they ask you to "Meet Romee. After being treated by a dentist for a tooth problem, the same symptoms returned the following day. At that point she started reading the book "Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures", by Mary Baker Eddy. She felt God's love, and the problem dissipated."

http://christianscience.com/prayer-and-health/firsthand-experiences-of-healing

This man is the head of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology? If their needs to be oversight here it seems to be in needing to assess the qualifications of those who serve on this committee not on the NSF.

Paul Cargile

5/8/2013 11:37:31 pm

It's more to the fact that people deny manmade climate change. After all the climate has been dynamic for billions of years, influenced by geophysical processes, solar output, orbital position, and axial tilt.

5/9/2013 03:25:53 am

The Science is in on this.

http://extremeicesurvey.org/

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/the-last-time-co2-was-this-high-humans-didnt-exist-15938

http://www.climatecentral.org/blogs/watch-62-years-of-global-warming-in-13-seconds-15469

There is more Science on this than the general public is made aware of but it all says the same thing. We have and are negatively impacting our world in ways we didn't foresee but lack of foresight doesn't excuse pretending it doesn't exist now. Denying this is just an attempt to absolve ourselves of responsibility for our past, for a lack of action in our present, and for the inevitable consequences in our future.

Global climate is a natural process that we've inadvertently messed up. This isn't a matter of opinion.

5/10/2013 02:04:05 am

What is the standard climate of the Earth that we should attempt to attain and maintain?

5/10/2013 10:28:46 am

You clearly don't understand this subject and have no interest in learning. Not wasting time explaining it to you. Feel free to do any amount of research if you change your mind. The information is everywhere.

5/10/2013 12:12:08 pm

Paul --

I can't tell if you are being facetious, legitimately curious, or a "non-believer" in anthropogenic induced climate change. I'm going to assume it's the second option, since the first would mean you are already aware of the dynamic systems that scientists are studying to better understand both natural and man-made feedback mechanisms, and the last option would indicate a level of naiveté and denial that any amount of reason or evidence will never sway.

Geological (not geophysical) processes, such as large volcanic eruptions, typically cool the Earth for a few years since the ash and gases released during eruption block out solar radiation in the atmosphere. But, volcanic eruptions only affect global climate on the period of years, usually less than five.

Plate tectonics also play a role in climate change, since the position of the continents greatly affects ocean conveyor systems. This is important because a lot of heat can be store in water (i.e. oceans). The movement of water from the poles to the equator and vice versa and up and down in the water column are imperative to the transfer of heat globally (as are salinity concentration for that matter). A large influx of fresh water from a previously terrestrially locked source (such as, say, ice sheets) may have a huge effect on ocean currents, as does the position of the continents. Plate tectonics, however, can take hundreds of thousands to millions of years to significantly change ocean current directions and therefore climate patterns. However, ice sheet melt that is quickly forced into the thermohaline currents of the poles can quickly alter climate to colder conditions. Much colder conditions.

Solar insolation (meaning amount of solar radiation measured at a specific point on the Earth) is different at every point on Earth based on latitude, season, and Milankovitch cycles. Milankovitch cycles include orbital eccentricity (how round or oval is the shape of the Earth's orbit, if it's round solar insolation based on eccentricity is the same year round, whereas if it's oval then it's very different depending on where the Earth is in its orbit), obliquity (tilt of the Earth's rotational access, if the tilt is high the seasons are more severe -- hemispheres are pointing more directly at the sun get more radiation -- if it's low the seasons are milder), and precession (This one is the funky one, it's because Earth's orbit is never truly round, it's always sort of oval. If Earth is at its farthest point away from the sun in the oval, and the northern hemisphere is having summer so it's pointing more directly at the sun, it won't be as warm as if the Earth was at the closest point on the oval orbit and in northern summer. That being said, where the Earth is in that oval when the hemispheres are having summer or winter changes with time so summers or winters get warmer or colder depending on the Earth's position in its orbit.) So, obviously climate will change based on Milankovitch cycles and this is shown time and time again when looking at climatic records in ice, sediments, and even fossils. However, Milankovitch cycles occur on time frames of 22,000 years, 40,000 years, and 100,000 years for precession, obliquity, and eccentricity, respectively. Again, like volcanic activity and plate tectonics, this will not account for changes we’ve seen in the last 150 years.

And as you so aptly put in a previous post, the fact is that many people deny man-made climate change. People in general deny what is reality every day, from the fact that they look good in that tube top to the notion that even though that milk smells kind of funky, it's probably ok. It doesn't change the fact that the jump in CO2 levels and other greenhouse gases, ozone depletion, water and soil pollution, smog so thick you can't see across the street, and depletion of every natural resource IS our fault and without research into how these affect weather patterns, our water supplies, our agriculture, ecosystems, sea level, and climate in general we won't be able to fix what we can and prepare for the consequences of a vastly changing environment. It doesn't matter whether someone "believes" in climate change -- man-made or otherwise -- the fact is that the climate is changing. And as of right now, it's not related to geological processes, solar insolation value changes from Milankovitch cycles, or methane release from the deep ocean. The question is, since it's not any of those, what is it? How have we influenced it? What happens when the natural processes actually do influence climate? And are we prepared for even bigger changes?

I can answer the last question for you: No.

titus pullo

5/13/2013 06:26:20 am

Can someone quantify the rise of CO2 in terms of % in the atmosphere? Can someone explain the changes in Earth's climate over time (Radiation deltas from the Sun, Volcanism, Biological, Impacts)? It looks like we have a very complex nonlinear system not at all well understood that drives Earth's climate..and while I do think we should be aware of unintended consequences...using science to drive a political agenda needs to be called out. Eugenics was considered a proved theory in the 30's...so we should always allow those to question the conventional wisdom..that is how science makes headway...the folks who want to stop the climate debate need to be a little more tolerant and if evidence comes up that refutes their theory..they need to accept it and move on...

5/13/2013 06:11:02 pm

Titus, is it?

Here's one example of data regarding the rise of CO2 and how quickly it's risen.

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/carbon-dioxide-passes-400ppm-milestone-for-first-time-in-modern-human-history-noaa-says-15975

There are many sources that you might seek out from other work in different disciplines that has been done and is currently being done which says much the same thing. That is, that we have changed and are changing the composition of our atmosphere more quickly in this regard than at any other time in our existence and even long before our existence.

Now, as a "former research Scientist" yourself, you should be able to appreciate that no matter what your politics it won't change the fact that a variable like that introduced into such a complex system so suddenly will have inevitable consequences. The question at this point isn't IF there'll be repercussions but what are they, and when will see an acute effect?

Based on your other posts in this thread you seem pretty jaded about both Science and political discourse. Elsewhere you seem to imply a more right-leaning political viewpoint and a dismissive attitude toward a subject that doesn't favor that ideology. This may be hard for you to believe but not all Scientists work like politicians in only doing something for money or recognition. Of course, who wouldn't like to be recognized for their work? That can hardly be used a evidence of dishonesty among all who find a consensus that you happen not to agree with. Integrity does actually still exist in some places. Perhaps what you don't understand is that the problem is actually what it seems to be and that the political argument is an pointless, and irritating side-effect. Politics, unfortunately, seems to be able to argue that reality isn't what it seems to be but real Scientists have no such luxury.

That you have such a negative view suggests more about you than about the Scientific community and perhaps why you're a "former" Scientist.

5/14/2013 02:02:38 am

Sean,

You can present facts or attack me..I guess you decided to attack. You know exactly why I asked the question about CO2 PPM...today compared to other geological times. As well as the delta over time. And my point that global climate over time is based on non linear relationships that we really don't have a good understanding of can't be disputed. What is your view on economics (yes this does matter since everyone's politics affects their views...) and so on. I actually don't want to know..your reply to my questions pretty much said it all.

I see a direct link between central planners using the environment as a "issue" from Supersonic Jets destroying the ozone layer to nuclear winter (remember that one) to global cooling to then global warming...to now climate change...hey the eugenic crowd had the patent on how to do this type of public relations 70 years ago.

While I am well aware that this planet is the only place we can live on and we should be concerned about unintended consequences....using "science" to push a political agenda will just cause more human misery.....if you want to disagree with me fine..but keep it based on facts not a personal attack in the guise of some psycho analysis. I'm sure you would rather debate on a factual basis anyway.

Cheers.

5/14/2013 03:07:10 am

Titus,

That what you took from my post was a personal attack effectively ends this conversation. Both my posts and the post from Kate (above) have plenty of facts for you to chew on but you seem completely preoccupied with politics and only politics.

I have to question your professed involvement in any scientific research as you seem not to understand how science works, have trouble with the concepts involved, misuse terminology, and ignore relevant information when it's presented in favor of accusations of personal attack.

Best of luck, have a good day.

5/8/2013 11:33:16 pm

Sounds more like the mayor is promoting tourism to boost the local economy. A natural rock wall feature isn't that interesting, unless it has some speculation and mystery behind it.

Bruce Schwitters

5/10/2013 03:01:13 am

I think the mayor and local dignitaries ought to go check out the Wi. Dells area and learn how to promote their natural formation into a proper tourist trap.

Coridan Miller

5/9/2013 01:15:12 am

US Congressman aren't elected for their intelligence. A prime example http://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3DQjG958lZ1KI&sa=U&ei=oZKLUYa_Ba-C0QH-ioGIBw&ved=0CBkQtwIwAA&sig2=z0nTTvWBotYigcOQdHkSjA&usg=AFQjCNHD85PTxXsT4tyvBHnA5oLQgpbHYA

Coridan Miller link

5/9/2013 01:17:00 am

A cleaner link, or just click my name http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QjG958lZ1KI

5/9/2013 04:30:25 am

Wow. Just wow.

My own congressman is of pretty limited horizons himself, to the point where he maintains a virtual silence. Never debates, rarely makes any speech (especially on the floor of Congress), almost never introduces legislation (for a few years there almost everything was renaming post offices). Some effort goes into keeping him away from mics and public questions.

He's a high school grad, never went to college of any sort, was not in the military, really doesn't have any training in any professional area. Just a party functionary who got Laurence J. Peter-ed to Congress. I mention this here because that is pretty typical for the district and with a general anti-academic attitude many people perceive his complete lack of formal education as a PLUS. "Hey he's one of us!"

This is what happened the one time he did propose something other than renaming a post office:

http://blogs.philadelphiaweekly.com/phillynow/2011/01/13/rep-bob-brady-universally-rebuked-across-the-country-on-stupid-idea/

What's worse is that in a gerrymandered district, often no one runs against him from another party and as chairman of the city party no one likes to run against him from inside the party. It's basically his job until he doesn't want it any longer.

So you've got this lump in Congress who really doesn't understand many of the issues he's instructed (by other party functionaries) to vote on one way or the other, and is voting on bombing places he can't find on an unmarked map or pronounce, or on complex economic issues, or environmental issues requiring some form of science literacy.

This rolls downhill too - the people working in his offices doing constituent services also lack any education and literally do not understand the vast majority of issues I contact them about. Someone from the Washington office contacted me and suggested that the next time I have what amounts to a "smart people issue" (!) that I skip trying to contact my local congressional offices and speak to certain people in the DC office who, apparently, work on explaining issues to the guy holding the seat.

This is certainly one of those jobs I think calls for a "piece of paper" or "letters after your name."

Oh, and the kicker: his district includes Independence Hall; he's basically the modern replacement for Ben Franklin. Sometimes when I think about American society I hear the whistle of a bomb dropping.

5/13/2013 06:16:46 am

Nice post. My parents were big time Democrats so I got to meet up close and personal all sorts of politicians over the years including Congressman/women. And to the one..they were dunces...not one had a technical degree or any critical thinking ability (same for the GOP...). I once got into a debate with the number three guy in Newt's 1994 GOP takeover (he was my congressman) and explained to him why deficit spending doesn't work as well as the whole fallacy of keynsian economics...he obviously didn't have the basics down of what an opportunity cost was or how artifically low interest rates cause bubbles and distort investment...in the end we get the govt we want..we want the goodies and have someone else pay for them..hence we get such beauties as these folks.

RLewis

5/10/2013 02:44:39 pm

FYI - The article seems to call out local Kevin Richeson as the "local excavation expert (not Lindsey) - although perhaps Lindsey was the "expert" for the Richeson-funded excavation.

Jason Colavito link

5/10/2013 02:52:14 pm

That is very strange. My notes have Lindsay's name, and I don't usually mix up people who aren't even in the article. I can't figure how that mistake happened. Thanks for pointing it out. I've edited the piece to correct Richeson's name.

5/13/2013 06:11:24 am

As a former research scientist (inertial laser fusion), I wanted to point out that scientists are driven by the same dynamics as anyone else. In their world, it is all about grants and funding..and I've seen scientists spin things all sorts of ways to get funding and publish (remember in the scientific academic world..it is all about publishing..it really doesn't matter what is published as long as you get a high volume published..note the rapid rise of journals since WWII when this system took off courtesy of Federal dollars). So when scientist says something..it should not be viewed as apolitical...what keeps science "fair" is the ability for other scientists to challenge the test results reported. Peer review is supposed to do this but it has become rather lacking in a sort of "you support my results and I'll support yours" mentality...again the quest is funding. So if the scientist for example believes that NOAA or NSF only will fund research which will prove human driven global warming..guess what results you will get? Again the money to some extent corrupts the system...specifically govt money. I hate to say this but the best R&D and the real breakthoughs in terms of human betterment have come from private research labs...Airplanes, Steam Engines, Telephones, transistor, IC, PC and so on...

I'm not saying that this bill would be an improvement..but the supposed removed from politics NSF isn't at all...because it is made of people...and people are well people acting in their own self interest.

5/14/2013 01:57:59 am

Oh Titus, it's so sad to see a former scientist become so despondent. Are there problems in the scientific community? Of course, as you point out, we all are human, with egos and bills and political leanings and favorite ice cream types. Scientists -- good scientists, real scientists -- actually use the scientific method and when a hypothesis is not proven by their experiments, revise their hypothesis and try again. Negative results are still good results, just not necessarily what we had thought would happen.

I should also point out that the R&D breakthroughs you list are items, not ideas that were revolutionary and shifted the paradigm in a discipline. While all of those items are integral to everyday life, they all came from theories and research done before. Theoretical scientists provide the evidence that something is possible, experimental scientists test those theories and hypotheses, and either a breakthrough is made or the theory is revised. I'm not sure why you or other people believe that scientists get an idea in their head then never revise it. I have never seen this, all of the scientists I know professionally and personally welcome a monkey wrench in the gears -- it means they didn't think of something, then it becomes a quest to find the answer. Frustrating? Sure. Utterly satisfying when you figure it out? Absolutely.

What the scientific community needs (geology, archaeology, physics, etc.) is the ability to be funded without taking into account where the money is coming from. Most horror stories I have heard involve research funding coming from companies (private companies, I might add) that had political leanings and expect results that point to the answer they want. And yes, in academia, publishing is pushed pushed pushed, but I have never experienced nor have I seen in my community any evidence of quid pro quo when publishing in the journals that have any repute.

5/14/2013 07:26:54 am

Kate,

I am sorry being new to this blog...(I actually had to burn a few vacation days this week being the end of the fiscal year of the company I work for as Product Manager so I decided to do a little blogging..I like the work Jason has done quite a bit)..so I don't know your background. And your blogs are very good in terms of critical thinking. Mine for the record since Sean seems to be implying that I am some sort of fraud is the following:

BS Chemistry with a minor in Physics : University of Rochester
Masters Georgia Institute of Technology (I specialized in operations management).
I worked in high energy research for a govt/academic research facility...my work was on laser notch filters (liquid crystals) and bounce coating techniques for inertial laser fusion (essentially taking a small polymer ball, coating it with various substances, filling the ball with tritium and then blasting away at it with a large laser..the idea being the ablation of the coating would create pressure waves which would "fuse" the tritium..resulting in fusion...the great hope for the last 50 years or more has been commercial fusion..which I'm sure you know always seems to be 20 years away (although in Europe they have taken the Russian approach with a plasma magnetic bottle method in a major facility). After I left applied research I spent time working on manufacturing techniques for surface mounted ICs (printed circuit boards)...I eventually went into the business side (finance, mergers/acquistions of tech companies, and finally marketing/product management). So I'll admit I left the lab a long time ago...that said the situation at least where I was had its downside as I pointed out. There has always been this battle between academic basic research and private sector R&D...and at least from where I sit, I think private sector R&D has a better record...sure there might be some "breakthrough" not intended from academia..I think the whole publish or perish mentality actually hinders the academic scientist...and let's be frank..there are so many academics who have contracts with companies now...again not sure that is a good thing. The big federal program when I was in research was "SDI" Star Wars...now most of the PhD's I worked for knew it wouldn't work..but their papers never said this...they knew where the money was and went for it. Does taking public funds (via the Federal Govt either directly from taxes or borrowing or printing money) to give to academia actually result in improving peoples lives more than allowing folks to keep their money and let the free market work? When you look at the Wright Brothers, James Hill (Great Northern Railroad), Edison, Tesla, and even Jobs...I would say the private sector does a better overall job. Again I have no issue with academic research...my beef is that the peer review has become a joke...and anyone who questions "authority" gets marginalized. One should be allowed to question the conventional wisdom...and not rejected because it isn't the conventional political view. Take for example our foreign policy...when anyone pointed out the attacks on the US were at least partly blowback from our interventionist foreign policy they were labeled as traitors..now its pretty obvious our interference in Iran in the 50's and Iraq in the 80s/90s were a major cause for the crazies to attack us...

Anyway keep up the good writing...