Inventing a "Lost" Episode of America Unearthed: "Unicorns in America"

2/26/2013

One of the problems I’ve often encountered in discussing speculative claims is that many readers aren’t familiar with the concept of the burden of proof and therefore feel that the skeptic has an equal obligation to disprove a claim that the advocate has in proving it. But “prove me wrong” just doesn’t work as science or history; otherwise, we’d spend all our days trying to disprove the existence of every wild claim ever made and have to provisionally accept anything anyone ever said as true until proved otherwise to the satisfaction of the most diehard believer. And as we’ve seen, no evidence will ever convince the most zealous advocates that they are wrong. That’s why science deals in probabilities, not absolutes, and makes provisional claims based on evidence, not absolute truth claims from dogma.

In the comments thread to one of my earlier blog posts about America Unearthed, one reader took exception to my suggestion that the evidence Scott Wolter used to spin his stories was no better than the stories of unicorns. Why should Wolter have all the fun? I thought it might be entertaining to use the America Unearthed system of speculation to see if we can “prove” that unicorns exist. So, here is my outline for how to develop a new episode of America Unearthed entirely from hot air. Read and enjoy, but note that nothing here is as it seems….

AMERICA UNHINGED: Unicorns in America?

The show should start with a sepia-toned recreation of an old-timey person walking through some woods. His jaw will drop as he sees… a CGI unicorn!

We’ll need some splashy graphics, like these:

And a good intro: HISTORY AS WE KNOW IT IS WRONG! Academic elites are keeping the truth from you! Facts can lie, but TV never does. Then we’ll start the show proper.

To begin, we’ll need some wild stories that someone, somewhere once encountered a unicorn. This should preferably have occurred in the backwoods of rural America and have taken place sometime between 1500 and 1925 to ensure no living person survives to confirm the story. Can we do this? Yes, we can.

In exploring the land of Spanish Florida in his second voyage of 1565, Sir John Hawkins recorded in his journal that he encountered evidence of unicorns:

The Floridians have pieces of unicorns’ horns, which they wear about their necks, whereof the Frenchmen obtained many pieces. Of those unicorns they have many; for that they do affirm it to be a beast with one horn, which, coming to the river to drink, putteth the same into the water before he drinketh. Of this unicorn’s horn there are of our company that, having gotten the same of the Frenchmen, brought home thereof to show.

John Davis, the arctic explorer fooled by the Zeno Map, reported that he found unicorn horns as far up as 67 degrees north latitude in 1588, in the hands of an Inuit:

Of them I had a darte with a bone in it, or a piece of Unicornes horne, as I did judge. This dart he made store of, but when he saw a knife, he let it go, being more desirous of the knife than of his dart.

Further, Dr. Olfert Dapper in Die Unbekannte Nue Welt (1673) writes that there were unicorns in Maine. In Odell Shepard’s translation:

On the Canadian border there are sometimes seen animals resembling horses, but with cloven roofs, rough manes, a long straight horn upon the forehead, a curled tail like that of the wild boar, black eyes, and a neck like that of the stag. They live in the loneliest wildernesses and are so shy that the males do not even pasture with the females except in the season of rut, when they are not so wild. As soon as this season is past, however, they fight not only with other beasts but even with those of their own kind.

So, now we have historic sightings up and down America’s east coast—the very coast where the European voyagers must have landed after leaving Europe. According to Hawkins, we also have “horns” as artifacts, which means that we can then do some fake geological tests to “prove” that these horns are in fact more than 500 years old and therefore genuine. Fossilized bone can’t easily be tested for DNA, so as long as its fossilized no one can prove it’s not a unicorn horn. How did unicorns get here, and what don’t academics want you to know?

We should also see if a famous historical figure, preferably a major European with occult connections, had anything to say about unicorns. Oh, here we go. Leonardo da Vinci talked about unicorns in his notebooks: “The unicorn, through its intemperance and not knowing how to control itself, for the love it bears to fair maidens forgets its ferocity and wildness; and laying aside all fear it will go up to a seated damsel and go to sleep in her lap, and thus the hunters take it.” The traveler Marco Polo also claimed to have seen one: “They have a single large black horn in the middle of the forehead.” Obviously, there is a deep conspiracy connection that the academic elite are covering up? What could it be, and what is the connection to America?

We should fly to Britain to find out because that’s what our travel budget already expensed for other episodes. Experts in medieval lore will explain that the unicorn’s association with virginity and purity meant that it was a symbol of Christ. We will also be amazed to discover that the unicorn is prominently featured on the arms of the United Kingdom. Could this be a coincidence? Of course not. The unicorn, we will learn, was added as a supporter to the heraldic arms of England in 1603, when England, symbolized by a lion, joined with… wait for it… Scotland, in personal union under King James. The unicorn was meant to symbolize Scotland because the unicorn was associated with purity and freedom, but those of us in the know understand that Scotland has an occult connection to the Knights Templar, who fled to Scotland after the suppression of their order, hid the Holy Grail in Rosslyn Chapel, and became the Scottish Rite Freemasons.

Arms of the United Kingdom

We’re getting in deep now.

At Rosslyn Chapel, we learn that the Holy Grail (San greal) was in fact a symbol of the womb of Mary Magdalene, who is believed by occult speculators to have been the wife of Jesus and the mother of his child. Spirited away to France, the bloodline (sang real) spawned by this union gave rise to Merovingian kings on the Continent. Kicked out of power by the Carolingians, they lay hidden, protected by various orders including the Knights Templar until the Catholic Church disbanded the Templars, who moved to Scotland and became Freemasons. There the Christ bloodline eventually became, according to ancient astronaut theorist Laurence Gardner, the Stuarts in Scotland, whose most famous scion was James I of England (James VI of Scotland)!

But what did King James know about unicorns?

To find out, we turn to the King James Bible, commissioned by that monarch, where shockingly we find the mysterious unicorn mentioned throughout, in Job 39:9–12; Psalms 22:21, 29:6; Numbers 23:22, 24:8; and Deuteronomy 33:17.

In fact, the King James Bible seems to encode in its unicorn references a clear description of Templar-Freemason-Holy Grail activities. Psalm 22:21 appears to tell us that the Templars saved the Scottish bloodline of Christ from English corruption: “Save me from the lion’s mouth: for thou hast heard me from the horns of the unicorns.” This secretly-encoded message in the King James Bible seems to be a clear instruction to seek out the true divine bloodline in Scotland, not England. But there’s more: Psalm 29:6 says that God “maketh them also to skip like a calf; Lebanon and Sirion like a young unicorn.” But Sirion is an historical name for Mount Hermon, where the Book of Enoch states that the Fallen Angels descended to mate with human women. Is this a reference to the fact that the unicorn represents the bloodline of divine Christ and mortal Mary Magdalene? Numbers 23:22 tells us what happened next: “God brought them out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of an unicorn.” Clearly, the King James Bible is telling us that the bloodline escaped the Old World (the evil, corrupt “Egypt”) for the New!

But the Knights Templar connection doesn’t end there. The unicorn was also said to be the special possession of Prester John, a shadowy medieval figure who ruled in either Ethiopia, where the Templars are said to have spirited the Ark of the Covenant and introduced Christianity, or in India, where the Greek writer Ctesias recorded the presence of the unicorn in his History of India 2,500 years ago (Photius, Biblioteca, codicil 72). (Ethiopia is also the only land where the Book of Enoch was preserved… coincidence?)

This same unicorn appears in the art of the Indus Valley civilization thousands of years earlier still.

Indus Valley unicorn seal.

The Indus Valley civilization, one of the oldest on earth, lost its place to the Aryan invasion, according to nineteenth century scholars, who of course must be correct because they are old and therefore smarter than twenty-first century scholars. These Aryans spread from India to England, and they must have adopted the unicorn as their symbol when they became civilized after conquering India. As a result, the warrior caste of these Aryans (confirmed to exist by scholars of Indo-European society) must have been the precursors to the Knights Templar. Consider: Both groups rode horses, used weapons and armor, recited epic poetry, and took orders from a high-ranking spiritual elite. Clearly they are the same people.

Now, America Unearthed already established that medieval and ancient peoples did not make up fanciful depictions of, say, dinosaurs, and rock drawings of boats are accurate enough to identify the specific type of ship, so any depiction must be a real creature. Given the wide range of unicorns depicted in art from the Indus Valley to the Middle Ages, we must conclude that there is good evidence for unicorns, especially since medieval apothecaries stocked “unicorn horn” among their medical offerings and we all know that if there is an artifact attached, it must be a real animal. In 1663, an entire unicorn skeleton was uncovered in Germany, buried in limestone—like the famous Tucson caliche—and was reconstructed by Gottfried Wilhelm von Leibnitz, becoming the toast of Europe. Its horn still exists today and can be geologically tested to “prove” it is ancient… no, wait, let’s “prove” it’s medieval instead. Caliche only takes a few hundred years to form, right?

So what does this tell us? America Unearthed established that the Knights Templar came to America and explored the East Coast (where they built the Newport Tower). Certainly a branch of them came prior to Columbus, but why? Could they have been looking for their predecessors, the “precursors” who buried the Tucson Artifacts in the 800s CE? And would they have used unicorns to find them?

Clearly, when the precursors left Europe for Arizona because “some Muslim group,” as Scott Wolter has established, had forced them from Europe, they took with them their most precious cargo: A member of the bloodline of Christ and his guardian unicorns. Every divine figure had his or her guardian animals. Just as Zeus had his bulls and Marduk his dragon, so too did Christ have his unicorn. His descendant would, of course, have needed an escort of unicorns to serve at his court.

We also know that when the conquistador Hernando de Soto arrived in the New World to explore the southern United States, he brought pigs with him. Some of these pigs escaped and went feral, becoming the razorbacks of the South. Some of the unicorn herd the Templar precursors brought with them must have escaped as they made their way down the east coast, producing the herds of wild unicorns found in Maine and in Florida. From the distribution of unicorns, we know that the Templars precursors must have sailed the northerly route, from Scotland to Iceland to Greenland to Canada and then down the east coast.

Or perhaps the more recent Templars of the 1300s brought their unicorns with them when they built the Newport Tower. We know from John of Hesse that unicorns roamed the Holy Land in 1389, when he saw one, so obviously the Templars had access to unicorns during the two centuries when they were headquartered atop Jerusalem’s Temple Mount. Unicorns were still active in the Sinai region in 1483 when Felix Fabri saw one, but by then they were by then on the brink of extinction. The last unicorn supposedly died at Mecca around 1600. Did the Templars bring these unicorns to America to save them from Muslim and Catholic hostility and extinction?

We’ll never know until we perform some spurious geological testing on the unicorn horns in the possession of Native American groups to see if any date back before 1300 CE. This will let us establish which Templar or pre-Templar group brought unicorns and a descendant of Christ to America.

But what happened to the Christ kid? Tune in next week to find out which digital-tier cable host is the lineal descendant of Jesus and a candidate to be the Last World Emperor!

The above speculation is based on actual facts, though the interpretations given above are of course complete lies. The actual truth is this:

The unicorns of the King James Bible are a translation of the Greek monoceros, translating the Hebrew re’em in light of a stylized form of Assyrian art where bulls were depicted in profile, so only one horn was visible.
There is no bloodline of Christ; this myth was fabricated in the twentieth century.
The Knights Templar had no connection to the Freemasons, nor were they descended from an Aryan warrior priesthood.
Medieval apothecaries ground up narwhal horns, mammoth tusks, and other bones and believed they belonged to unicorns; some just committed fraud and called anything unicorn horn.
Marco Polo reported on a rhinoceros.
The unicorn horns seen by John Hawkins were probably various animal teeth and bones.
John Davis’s unicorn horns actually belonged to narwhals.
Leibniz’s unicorn skeleton was actually a fossil elephant from the Pleistocene.
There are no unicorn herds in the United States.

145 Comments

Kean Scott Monahan

2/26/2013 04:46:48 am

This from the same critic who, a mere 23 days ago, was in full blown denial in his blog, "Am I Obsessed with America Unearthed? No.

http://www.jasoncolavito.com/1/post/2013/02/am-i-obsessed-with-america-unearthed-no.html

Jason Colavito link

2/26/2013 04:58:07 am

Lighten up, Kean. It sounds like somebody's not having much fun.

Posts tagged "America Unearthed" have 10X the number of readers as any other subject I write about, according to my site metrics. Do you think I'm going to turn down readership, especially when I can do posts as fun as this one?

I got to discuss unicorns in European history by disguising it as a discussion of America Unearthed, and i got to create my own fake historical conspiracy thriller.

Kean Monahan

2/26/2013 05:13:50 am

OK, Jason,

You're having fun and so am I. If we want to go down the Fantasy Island road, let's go. As you know from my previous posts, I'm not here to defend America Unearthed or Scott Wolter. Just saying, people change over time, except I don't see much change in American archaeology's collective mindset in rejecting anything diffusionist from peer review.

OK, there's Dennis Stanford pre-Clovis hypothesis that got some traction largely because his professional stature required a hearing.

But I am curious, other than that and the celebrated L'Anse aux Meadows failed Norse colonization, what peer review submissions can you name in the past decade that have advanced to peer review.

My assertion of a generalized rejection by American archaeology to even investigate anomalous evidence not consistent with indigenous cultures, that is Native Americans. Everything else is trashed a priori.

Let's see if we can benefit from this departure in the humor-sphere and get some constructive answers to support your belief archaeology is fair-minded in reviewing that which it appears it must deny.

2/26/2013 05:39:13 am

A couple of corrections to my last post:

A-) Yes, I know L'Anse aux Meadows acceptance is a generation old, not past decade.

B-) in "what peer review submissions can you name in the past decade that have advance to peer review." Obviously, that question should have ended with a question mark, and I should have made submissions conditional w/r/t anomalous evidence of which I describe in the following 'graph.

Sorry I had to clarify my intention. I type faster than I think sometimes.

2/26/2013 02:29:38 pm

"I type faster than I think sometimes."

Clearly.

Jason, hilarious. Still better researched than AU.

John J. McKay link

2/26/2013 03:19:48 pm

Kean,
Thank you for clarifying that "what peer review submissions can you name in the past decade that have advanced to peer review" should have ended with a question mark. Now clarify what what topics of submission it is that you think are not advanced to peer review.

PS - "[T]opics of submission" sounds kind of kinky.

Christopher Randolph

2/26/2013 04:37:34 pm

"I'm not here to defend America Unearthed or Scott Wolter."

Talk about a claim that could use some proof!

terry the censor

2/26/2013 06:00:50 pm

@kean
> American archaeology's collective mindset in rejecting anything diffusionist from peer review.

Could it just be that the diffusionist work doesn't meet academic standards?

Here's an example ripped from today's online media headlines:

Melba Ketchum recently claimed the same thing about her Bigfoot DNA study -- that journals were shutting out her work despite having proved Bigfoot exists. She proceded to compare herself to Galileo! Ketchem then self-published her paper online, which only made things worse, because now millions of people could fact-check it. Scientists went online and hammered her methods to pieces, sure. But here's the clincher: skeptics discovered that Ketchum's scientific paper cited...an April Fools paper claiming yeti were related to horses! Ketchum responded weakly that she had no choice about using the joke paper (what?). And it wasn't just nasty scientists and skeptics picking on Ketchum: longtime Bigfoot author Loren Coleman praised the criticisms of the study in several posts and comments.

Of course in Ketchum's view, posted to Facebook, critics were merely mean and unreasonable and she did nothing wrong.

Ketchum sounds just like you, Kean: it's all a conspiracy!

2/27/2013 12:31:38 am

JJ McKay & Terry,

My challenge is simply to present an example in the past 10 years in which American archaeology has merely considered within its committee peer review process ANY submission that is NOT tied to indigenous cultural studies, but rather is suggestive of external pre-Columbian contact with the North American continent. L'Anse aux Meadows, Newfoundland excluded, as it is regarded as a limited Nordic excursion in time and place. I assert, other than the Smithsonian's Dennis Stanford's Solutrean hypothesis, there is no tolerance within American archaeology for anything diffusionist.

Even Stanford acknowledged in a November 21, 2002 BBC 2 radio interview: "When you dig deeper than Clovis a lot of people do not report it because they're worried about the reaction of their colleagues."

Show me another exception to the rule of archaeology's refusal to even consider diffusionism as a possibility. Please share any example if you can find one.

2/27/2013 12:46:39 am

For your consideration, Michael D. Lemonick and Andrea Dorfman's March 13, 2006 TIME cover story included this gem:

"The Clovis-first theory is pretty much dead, and the case for coastal migration appears to be getting stronger all the time. But in a field so recently liberated from a dogma that has kept it in an intellectual straitjacket since Franklin Roosevelt was President, all sorts of ideas are suddenly on the table.

At least a couple of archaeologists, including Dennis Stanford of the Smithsonian, even go so far as to suggest that the earliest Americans came from Europe, not Asia, pointing to similarities between Clovis spear points and blades from France and Spain dating to between 20,500 and 17,000 years B.P.

All this speculation is spurring a new burst of scholarship about locations all over the Americas."

If there's no conspiracy within American archaeology to suppress diffusionism with a scholarship across America over the past 7 years, show me examples of where and when the dogma has persisted!

2/27/2013 12:49:58 am

correction: examples where the dogma has NOT persisted.

2/27/2013 02:24:13 am

I love how diffusionist proponents perpetually whine about how Archaeology doesn't just believe any crack-pot theory thrown in front of them regarding pre-columbian contact then site and exclude the actual example of it (L'Anse aux Meadows). You claim the proof that you're right is that no one wants to take your word for it. Look up "evidence". Fascinating stuff and I think it will connect the gap in your thought process. Or if you're content as you are may I suggest you start watching Ancient Aliens instead. Their ideas are even less likely to ever be taken seriously, they also have no proof of anything, present their ideas as fact, and believe in widespread conspiracy. You'll fit right in.

2/27/2013 07:42:03 am

T.,

Perpetual? What about the perpetual indifference of American archaeology to diffusionism? Which bold defender of the dogma is going to step up to the plate here and demonstrate my claim that science is not being served by authorities who harbor bias in seriously reviewing evidence presented that is contrary to their faith? If this is whining, stop me in my tracks with a factual example of open-mindedness rather than puerile insults such what Tara's contributes.

No one on this board has yet criticized archaeologist Dennis Stanford for his bold departure from the profession's otherwise overt condemnation of diffusionism. Interesting, because that implies no one here has an issue with 18-22 thousand years of a North American continent isolated from contact with the outside world! If there diffusionism was demonstrably going on that far back in ancient times, then explain why trans-oeanic adventure and exploration on the high seas mysteriously did not happen again until the Norse came to Newfoundland.

If you want fantasy, no that's a whopper to swallow, guys.

2/27/2013 08:23:47 am

"no one here has an issue with 18-22 thousand years of a North American continent isolated from contact with the outside world!"

At first glance this doesn't make any sense as clearly the populations of North America came from Asia, which would be 'contact with the outside world.'

Of course since the native peoples of the Americas don't seem to get full credit as 'people' by the diffusionist crowd, this lends some context to what you might mean. Somehow populating two continents isn't "contact." Makes no sense until you realize that native Americans aren't really, yknow, card-carrying people to everyone ... so...

Your Atlantic crossing gambit seems to have been discredited by two genetics studies, oceanographers, the overwhelming majority of archeologists and linguists.

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

Other that, Mr. Lincoln, how was the play?

Setting aside vague similarities in arrowheads for a second, the DNA testing nails haplogroups of the native peoples of the Americas being linked without ambiguity to native Siberians, and rather less to Norwegians.

It's great that you've got a short passage from a 1996 article in Time to lean on. I picture you having this tacked up on a giant Conspiracy Corkboard with color-coded bits of string leading from it so you and you alone can crack the nefarious web of intrigue that's holding down the white man. Let us all know how that works out.

Kean Monahan link

2/27/2013 09:21:35 am

Mr. Randolph,

My reading of the Wikipedia article is that the jury is still out as the physical evidence suggests the Solutrean hypothesis is true, yet the mitochondrial DNA evidence by Italian and Brazilian researchers would argue against it. How many times have American archaeologists demanded physical, artifactual proof? Yet, even when produced and reproduced across several coastal Atlantic states, deniers such as you wiggle and squirm to find and out. I see bias in American archaeology's review perspective. And you've just revealed your bias in reading comprehension by mis--characterizing the thrust of your Wikipedia citation.

Look, you have been pounding the table across several threads here that racism is at at the core of advocacy for diffusionism despite Jason Colavito's urging his visitors not accuse adversaries (that is advocates such as me) of racism. Click the link next to my name above this post. I even advocate brown-skinned Arabs sailed to America before the Irish. Now, do you still wish to pursue your biased crusade? I'm happy to spar with a lightweight intellect.

2/27/2013 10:13:34 am

I'm not the lightweight intellect here.

Your reading of the entry is silly. There are two DNA studies that make you wrong (on the specific issue of the Atlantic crossing, never mind the C & Q haplogroups for the land bridge), there's an oceanographic study that says you're wrong, there's a 5,000 year (!!!) gap between two cultures you claim are one culture for which it's your burden to account. Even at the level of the arrowheads to which you cling as evidence, most competent professionals who study that physical evidence don't see anything more than some vague, coincidental meeting of form and function. You have a bag filled with nothing.

You have a belief, no amount of evidence is going to change it. It's just important to counter your nonsense, Wolterr's nonsense etc. in public so that people who come fresh to the issue aren't confused.

There aren't two sides with competing evidence here. Your side has wishful speculation and nothing else.

I have no idea who you're identifying as "Arabs." Arabs are a general ethnolinguistic group. You have any particular idea of which Arabs (or "Arabs") when went exactly where and did exactly what..?

Where, incidentally, is the Wolter show on Arabs in pre-Columbian America? Good ratings that one would get, do you imagine? Even when listing religious groups who engage in ritual bathing in his Pennsylvania adventure, Wolter couldn't quite recall or recite the world's sizable Muslim population, the largest and most obvious group of daily ritual bathers, certainly ones who existed in large number in many parts of the world, as a group of people who engage in ritual bathing. He passed those over (no pun intended) in favor of Freemasons and/or some Jewish minority groups.

"Judeo-Christian" sells advanced civilization, Muslim does not.

Noting that you think some manner of Arab did something quicker than the Irish is a curious way to advance the idea that you're pro-white. The Irish were not generally considered honorary whites until into the 20th century, and consultation of books such as "Nothing But the Same Old Story" will show you that the Irish have been depicted as apes and worse - not fully human - in political cartoons in the American and British press as recently as the 1980s.

Even and especially the most formal racists tend, as the British and French certainly did in their colonies, to divide (and conquer) ethnolinguistic groups by declaring that some semi-humans were relatively more advanced than other semi-humans, and would credit them with relative levels of advancement. Apartheid is a good example of the formalization of this process.

Of course there are a large number of Irish-Americans in the US now, largely oblivious to the fact that they were recently admitted to the white club. No one has been losing money lately by pandering to that crowd. Thus I'm not impressed.

When Wolter does a show about how Arabs and/or Muslims colonized North America before the Vikings you be sure and get back to me.

2/27/2013 10:16:24 am

"to advance the idea that you're pro-white"

should of course have read

"to advance the idea that you're not pro-white"

2/27/2013 10:56:20 am

Mr. Randolph, intellectually challenged as you may be,

"You have any particular idea of which Arabs (or "Arabs") when went exactly where and did exactly what..?"

Salalah, Dhofar, Oman: southern coast of Arab peninsula, as clearly described in the recommended my video link you superficially overlooked in deciding to rant on.

The WIkipedia article is NPOV, neutral point of view. You may cling to one section of the article as definitive proof, however you prefer to conveniently gloss over the paragraph entitled: "Recent supportive archaeological findings". I recommend you try reading with comprehension, so difficult for dogmatic archaeologists to do with their inherent biases to debunk, debunk, debunk that which does not comport with the clubby status quo.

Let's leave Wolter out of this, shall we? I am not defending him or America Unearthed. I am simply delineating in as clear a way as I can that American archaeology reeks with its own warts and deficiencies.

I your anger and defensiveness underscores my overarching analysis: something stinks with peer review. It is being used as a dismissive weapon against diffusionists, a priori. You contribute to a culture ignorant of the scientific imperative to be impartial in your analysis.

2/27/2013 01:36:42 pm

You don't get it, do you? You have no place in this discussion. You have a belief system that you want to be taken as historical evidence.
(evidence: noun- that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof)
If all you have is a convenient narrative (that you provide) which links inconclusive physical evidence (or faked artifacts that you simply won't accept as hoaxes despite overwhelming evidence) then you've not met the most basic of standards. You'd like to interpret before you have proof. It doesn't work that way. No matter how much you stomp your feet and scream "take me seriously!" YOU have to PROVE it. Neither, Science nor Archaeology have to bend over backwards for a narrative with no proof. This isn't conspiracy, this is how we learn about the past. By taking the time to VERIFY. (Verify: verb- to prove the truth of, as by evidence or testimony; confirm; substantiate) That way we don't go rewriting everything every time somebody finds a tooth and calls it a Unicorn horn!
You also can't site unsubstantiated narratives as evidence so stop referencing articles you've read about ideas that aren't proven, studies that are inconclusive, or a story you heard one time from a guy you know which you can provide a link for.
Also it seems that diffusionist proponents fail to understand the difference between a theory and a hypothesis. So here's some help with that.

Theory:noun-a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena.

Hypothesis: noun- a proposition assumed as a premise in an argument, a mere assumption or guess.

I hope that helps.

2/27/2013 05:27:00 pm

T.,

Citing dictionary definitions is fine. Thanks for the schooling. I'm well aware of scientific method and so was Rollin Gillespie in his career as one of NASA's pioneers. He was compelled to advance science, but he saw the same stale mentality among American archaeologists to protect their turf at all costs INCLUDING the asserting dogma ahead of investigation that I cite and that's been echoed by credible folks in mainstream media, including TIME and the Atlantic Monthly.

It's the mindset of the profession delusional in its belief it has absolute iron-fisted control over the "facts" that's the problem. Marching lockstep in a manifest bias is one thing. Breaking that psychological inertia to actually see a responsibility to actually investigate data and evidence presented to them with impartiality is the barrier they do not recognize, it is so ingrained in THEIR culture. I've seen this in action and so have other journalists.

Take 3 minutes and listen to what Rollin told me in 1985.

2/27/2013 05:35:59 pm

As best as I can determine the entire claim that Arabs of any sort reached the Americas before Columbus would be a couple of whisper-down-the-lane claims in 12th and 13th century Chinese documents that Arab sailors went somewhere called "Mulan Pi."

Mulan Pi is apparently commonly interpreted to mean Spain, suggesting that these folks sailed around Africa, and presumably back. That seems possible, although before declaring it fact I'd like some proof and not speculation.

For reasons that aren't at all clear to me, other people have decided that Mulan Pi means what's now California, meaning presumably that these people sailed east below Asia and crossed the Pacific. And then returned.

And then decided to drop the whole thing, as the discovery of vast new lands on the other side of a great ocean was no big thing.

We can't even get a story straight as to whether or not these Arabs sailed generally east or west.

There's no claim of physical evidence of Arabs in California as best as I can tell, and I'm not aware of any Arabic language claim of having been visiting the Americas. If there's any claim of genetic, physical or linguistic evidence of Arabs in America I don't know what that is.

2/28/2013 12:40:45 am

Mr. Randolph:

You either MISSED this claim I posted 3 replies back 2/27, 5:21 pm ET, or a priori DISMISSED it. Pretty powerful claim by Ali Ahmed Ali Ash-Shahri:

http://onter.net/video19.html

2/28/2013 02:05:15 am

OK, now I see what this is all about.

You're claiming that Omani sailors went straight to the coastal region of... um... Colorado.

It becomes obvious that Ali Ahmed Ali Ash Shahri is funded by Mormons doing their "special" brand of "archeology."

http://www.nephiproject.com/Newsletter/Ancient_Arabian_Language...%28final%29.pdf

“I came to America. I was invited by, uh, for two days by the Brigham Young University people and I did the lecture there and I met Phillip Leonard and he took me for about fourteen days on his cost, on his money, and he did everything for me."

I'm sure he did.

This is all about Mormon "archeology."

I see Phil Leonard is also listed as co-author of book called "Ancient Celtic America." Apparently this continent was just a Grand Central Station of visitors. Absolutely none of those visitors leave anything other than isolated inscriptions hundreds or thousands of miles inland. Funny, that. Of course they carry nothing from this continent back home with them either. They just visit random places in CO and WV, leave inscriptions in one location, then turn around and go home.

"Thamudic (الثمودية in Arabic) is an Old North Arabian dialect known from pre-Islamic inscriptions scattered across the Arabian desert and the Sinai. Dating to between the 4th century BC and the 3rd or 4th century AD, they were incorrectly named after the Thamud people [language named after a region in Yemen, on the southern end of Arabia, but hey whatever], with whom they are not directly associated."

That just happens to the correct time period for the Mormon belief in the presence of the Nephites in America.

You might well be trying to hitch your linguistic wagon to the wrong people.

This all is connected to Barry Fell, who was indeed a Harvard professor... of invertebrate zoology. This same Fell was accused of deliberate fraud, planting Celtic script in West Virginia, which he also miraculously "discovered." He also had Egyptians in New Zealand, because hey why not.

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

2/28/2013 02:55:21 am

Mr. Randolph,

Oh, I see. Mormons are de facto corrupt. Barry Fell is de facto corrupt. American archaeology is pure as the driven snow, and immune from criticism. They'll tell you so themselves. Therefore, it's OK to ignore/dismiss the petroglyphic evidence. How scientific of you to point this out to me.

I remind you of David H. Kelley's, deceased Professor Emeritus of Archaeology at the University of Calgary, admonition:

"I have no personal doubts that some of the inscriptions which have been reported are genuine Celtic ogham. Despite my occasional harsh criticism of Fell's treatment of individual inscriptions, it should be recognized that without Fell's work there would be no ogham problem to perplex us. We need to ask not only what Fell has done wrong in his epigraphy, but also where we have gone wrong as archaeologists in not recognizing such an extensive European presence in the New World."

Barry Fell was "accused" by your team, which has its vested interests in diminishing diffusionist ideas. Wikipedia contributors have chosen to magnify the what they choose and discard ALL Fell's body of work. Again, how magnanimously scientific of them to behave so.

As

2/28/2013 04:35:44 am

"Mormons are de facto corrupt."

As a matter of fact, yes, when it comes to archeological claims they are. The whole faith started with an obvious (and unlettered) charlatan reciting babble from a hat and making false archeological claims. Stunningly the general level of honesty in the faith managed to drop thereafter, as unlikely as that is. The low point was likely the Mountain Meadows massacre, in which Mormons killed a wagon train of non-Mormon whites and tried to frame local Indians for it.

Beyond this the faith is almost comically racist:

http://www.i4m.com/think/history/mormon_racism.htm

Those are all simply quotes from the Mormon holy books, never mind the ban on black members until 1978 (!), or as you and Wolter might render it "1978 AD."

And of course this is a FAITH, and not science. You have beliefs and work retroactively from there to "prove" yourself correct.

I have no doubt that Fell and others have planted false evidence for their silly claims, and appear to have dragged this poor Omani guy halfway across the world to give him a dog and pony show and make this nonsense seem respectable.

If it makes you feel any better, I also don't trust religious Jewish and Christian archeologists who find King David's toothbrush or Jesus' nail clippers 10 feet from where any Palestinian is living, nor do I trust religious Muslim archeologists who never see any evidence of any Jews anywhere.

I happen to have lived and worked on the Arabian peninsula, and I can guarantee you that if the claim that anyone from that area settled the Americas centuries ago, there's be hundreds of millions of petrodollars being poured into efforts to provide further proof. This is exactly the type of thing the likes of the Qatar Foundation would love to engage if the claims weren't so silly.

Your whole claim that mainstream archeologists have something to gain by suppressing these "finds" is idiotic. If anything if anyone thought they had the opportunity to gain prestige and funding, maybe tenure or what have you, get published academically, get popular press book deals, you name it, actual archeologists would be climbing over each other for the opportunity to rewrite the history books. What keeps them away is the fact that they know darn well there's nothing valid to investigate. The money and credit is in new finds.

As Judge Judy likes to say, if something doesn't make sense it isn't true. And the claim that archeologists make money and gain career-wise by ignoring new finds makes zero sense.

Your complaint if this nonsense were taken seriously by anyone qualified would be that the archeology industry would be monopolizing the site, stealing your thunder and profiting from the work of amateurs.

Is there anyone who agrees with you with a doctorate in any pertinent subject at all, who isn't dead and isn't trying to verify passages from the Book of Mormon?

2/28/2013 05:31:58 am

I'm going to acknowledge there's psychological inertia (call it bias if you wish) on both your side and my side. We are polarized. However, if you try to lump me along side racism, you are dead wrong. I'm advocating for the Muslim who came to America and was invited by Phil Leonard to inspect suspiciously Arabic characters that proliferate with heavy weathered patina on the faces of Block Rock and Bear Rock, including the engraved depiction of an ancient seafaring vessel.

That is evidence, like it or not. And it is evidence your archaeological friends won't get within 10 miles of because of what it suggests. Now, is that racism?

Let's inform Obama. I suggest he'll make excavation for artifacts a "shovel-ready" project superseding your archaeological establishment.

2/28/2013 06:45:49 am

No, it's not "psychological bias." You have a faith-based claim and I don't. That's not equal. I have a "bias" toward wanting evidence and not speculation, and I have a "bias" toward humans doing things that make sense, not things that make no sense.

It would have be nice to save us all a lot of time by letting us know up front that the motivation for the CO claims is proving the Book or Mormon is a historical document. Par for the course, you lied about this by omission.

Your Muslim patsy has been roped into supporting a claim that people who were not Muslims (because Islam didn't exist yet for at least another 400 years minimum) and might have lived as far from him as the Sinai Peninsula visited Colorado.

Perhaps these people behaved properly and had their skins turned white as a reward (which happens in the Book of Mormon, who could make that up?), who knows.

Part of the reason this strikes me as an obvious fraud is that the name "Thamudic" is a misnomer, placing the language to the southern end of Arabia (which has a seafaring history) when actually the people in the question lived in the north. (For some perspective, Saudi itself not including Oman, Yemen or any other country has land area roughly the size of Mexico. We're not talking the difference between northern or southern Delaware here.)

Some over-self-estimating fraudster who wanted to place the southern Arabian sailing culture in the Americas could easily pick a language for the supposed inscriptions which he thought was native to the area owing to the misnomer, but in fact originated far to the north.

Interestingly instead of claiming that the sailors started in the Mediterranean and crossed the Atlantic, we therefore have these people either sailing around Africa, and then because that isn't far enough across the Atlantic, and then because that isn't far enough they cross half of North America by foot.

Then leave some writing (but nothing else) at one site. And then... what? Come home?

Or they sailed east below all of Asia, but that wasn't far enough, so they crossed the Pacific. Still not far enough. So they walked to Colorado, etc.

They just so happen to have decided to make these amazing journeys in the American West, in places that'd validate the Book of Mormon. Amazing, that.

2/28/2013 07:05:40 am

Chris,

Look we're at an impasse, but you continue to attack me, now assuming I'm a stooge for the Book of Mormon. That's nonsense. I am not among those with a faith-based agenda or in any way lay claim to the Lost Tribes of Israel. Neither Phil Leonard nor I are Mormon and never have been. Period.

Secondly, until I raised the fact that I will advocate for a Muslim (which, of course I realize was not even invented when the Frankincense ocean trading route from the port of Salalah, Oman attempted to shorten the Silk Road route to the Far East), you tried smearing me as associated with white racists for advocating an Irish presence in the New World a thousand years before Columbus. Well, I disposed of that as well, by showing I'm an equal opportunity advocate for dark-skinned people. Now, with your latest post, you are acting more like a racist in insulting and dismissing an Arab as some kind of a puppet for Mormonism. Shame on you.

Thirdly, the view either Arab or Persian or Irish explorers "walked" to Colorado is a bit preposterous. In ancient time, the rivers were the transportation arterials and there's no reason to expect our ancient visitors to mid-America did not navigate up river on the Mississippi and Arkansas to explore or trade, assured that they'd get back to the moorings of their ocean going vessels by returning downstream, if indeed they survived the rigors of their adventure westward.

Fourth, I'm not going to convince you and you're not going to convince me by prolonging this tired thread. Your insults, you lame attempts to portray my motives in reporting these stories and keep changing tact, and your faith in the divinity and wholesomeness of American archaeology's scientific integrity, has become, frankly, tiresome.

Pick on someone else who is your intellectual equivalent.

2/28/2013 07:56:22 am

"now assuming I'm a stooge for the Book of Mormon"

That's right. You're pushing a story that only has funding with someone affiliated with BYU. The one man in (possibly the wrong end of) Arabia who backs the story is fed information from this source and was brought to BYU for two days on the Mormon dime to lend credence to their tale. The only web source which gives us this information is a Mormon "archeology" site which is dedicated to locating the Nephites, a group of people no one other than the Mormons believes exists.

If the garment fits, wear it.

"you tried smearing me as associated with white racists for advocating an Irish presence in the New World a thousand years before Columbus"

A thousand years, now, is it? That's pretty specific reckoning, one that comes one source, the dead man with zero training in any related field who qualified archeologists insist was guilty of creating a knowing fraud.

The racism is in the quest to "prove" that Europeans and the 'honorary whites' who comprise the specific religious forebears of current white Americans have claim to North America and built everything here of note, Native Americans be damned. That's the theme of AU.

Anything associated with historical veracity the Book of Mormon is pretty darn racist. This is a book that says that people with "black" skins bear the mark and curse of Cain because they were murderous before they were born. Yikes.

You still haven't indicated whether you think the proto-Omani sailed west or east to America. If you contend west, they bypassed all of Africa and decided to cross the Atlantic on a lark, bypassed Florida and half the Gulf Coast, decided (although European explorers skipped it for a couple hundred years) to sail up the Mississippi and then had a hankering to enter the Arkansas River system and follow it about as far as they could go.

Why? To "trade"?! Nothing and nobody to trade with closer..? Of course they left markings at one very convenient place for Mormons and evidently left, since we have no bodies.

Or did they sail east, skip all of Asia "for trade", cross the Pacific (which is a larger body of water than they ever could have dreamed, but just kept sailing toward their apparent doom anyway). Landed on west coast.

But that WASN'T FAR ENOUGH. No, they either walked to Colorado or followed a system like the Sacramento for a bit, then had to get out of the boats and keep walking anyway.

Left some graffiti, took off... yeah, that all makes perfect sense.

Also they brought nothing back with them from "trade" and left no accounts of this trip at home.

I'm fully willing to (dis)credit archeologists with being as vain, greedy and envious as the rest of us. That's why I should fully expect them to embrace any new site that puts their own names on the books that rewrite history. You're the one making archeologists out to be the people who are willing to sacrifice personal gain to protect idea(l)s, albeit ones you don't agree with. You have them saints and martyrs, not me.

2/28/2013 08:30:36 am

For someone who so vigorously wants to condemn anyone who fabricates evidence, you seem very blind to doing you yourself, and in abundance. Kindly read your own posts and my point blank denials, how prone you seem to be to predict, divine, and propagate the mythical motives you keep assigning to me. Are you disturbed?

Barry Fell was not the fraudster you insist you must jacket him as. Indignant American archaeologists wholly untrained in the recognition of written scripts from the Old World, had no other defensive ammunition than to attack him in much the same way you attack me.

I understand Fell made mistakes. You don't understand what a brilliant epigrapher he was, as well. He didn't get everything right and I can back that up because I resigned from his Epigraphic Society in the late 1980s along with most of the team I've worked with because of sloppiness in his translations. However, Fell made it a point not to visit the sites of emerging,discoveries of suspected Ogham and other alphabets SPECIFICALLY to deflect suspicions that he was tampering with the evidence. He was not guilty and archaeologists who were covering their own butts because they knew not what they knew not, were desperate to discredit him.

Nonetheless, Fell broke open a debate that reverberates to today, long after his death: Is American archaeology biased? I say from experience the answer is an unequivocal YES.

There is no fabrication of the evidence in which I present to the best of my knowledge. Is that to say all data forthcoming from what I recognize are sensationalized and superficial episodes such as America Unearthed is honestly presented? No, I have suspicions as do you and Jason. However, that doesn't make everything they've examined faulty, Q.E.D. On the other hand, being in the absolutist camp of institutional archaeology, EVERYTHING diffusionist must be faulty, Q.E.D. Blame Barry Fell, America Unearthed, Muslim Mormon puppets, me, others provoked by complacent, indifferent authorities in your field, the boogie man, whoever. Does this give you comfort, oh man of many fabrications here on this thread?

Look inside and understand how different the world might be if truth and the scientific imperative really mattered.

Will Ritson

5/4/2013 06:04:34 pm

If this was fun for you.... I'd suggest venturing outside every now and then.

Trust me, it's better.

Tara Jordan

2/27/2013 04:50:53 am

Homoeroticism Unearthed Lost Episode : The Semantics of the Popular Short Pants Fetish, A study in Psychological anthropology, with special guest Kean Scott Monahan

2/28/2013 06:12:25 am

So the bottom line is that you will never accept real evidence as proof of anything, you will never accept that history is always being rewritten with every new discovery, you will never accept that there's no reason for anyone to hide evidence because it's in the best interest of their careers to find and present new evidence. Is that about right? If these insane ideas aren't accepted without proof than it's clearly a conspiracy? Yeah, that must be it. Again, you have no place in this discussion. You're a fairy tale pusher. If you actually do know anything about anything and you're ignoring it to make these ridiculous arguments then shame on you. Apparently the previous schooling didn’t entirely sink in. Stop citing disgraced researchers, conspiracy theories, and personal prejudice against educated professionals as evidence for ancient transatlantic voyages. Deflect all you want but it will never make these ideas credible. Whatever personal reasons you have for wanting these things to be true are totally and completely irrelevant. These ideas that you’re so fond of are all sleight of hand and you’ve fallen for it. It’s that simple.

2/28/2013 06:46:33 am

T.,

Your post speaks volumes.

1-) "you have no place in this discussion". You'd have me muzzled for opposing archaeological authoritarianism. I vigorously disagree, however, if you like, you might appeal to moderator Jason Colavito to block my voice and delete my past postings. Otherwise, I intend to bring balance and perspective to an otherwise "attaboy Jason" blog site. There's a revolt by Americans, both journalists and otherwise, to just rollover and trust absolutely American archaeologists to impartially examine the evidence. I think I have demonstrated adequately they aren't prone to that behavior but are institutionally biased when presented with data suggestive of diffusionism. Do you really want to curtail my First Amendment right to free speech? That would be consistent with the suppression of opinion you seem to advocate.

2-) "it will never make these ideas credible". In your perfect world with demonstrably biased committee peer review and authority to regulate mass thought, your utopia of worship might work. I believe by challenging authority to actually to the heavy lifting they refuse to do, there will ultimately come to pass public outrage at American archaeology for their dereliction of duty. We will see.

3-) You can get me kicked off this forum and smile all the way to eternity. But I still get to have a voice in the dialogue at onter.net

4-) The prejudice you display only substantiates my claims and invigorates my resolve. Thanks for being such a "stick in the mud."

2/28/2013 02:45:17 pm

In response to #1- You don't belong in this discussion because you lack anything informed or constructive to contribute. As for your First Amendment rights I think that our new Secretary of State John Kerry had a point in saying that as an American you have the right to be stupid but I'm going to exercise my right to free speech and call you on it.
As for #'s 2, 3 and 4: You're a paranoid delusional with a persecution complex, you've proven absolutely nothing except this fact, and are, as per usual, deflecting because you don't have a leg to stand on and you know it.

2/28/2013 05:11:40 pm

"There's a revolt by Americans, both journalists and otherwise, to just rollover and trust absolutely American archaeologists to impartially examine the evidence."

There's a revolt by Americans against the notion that anyone with any form of formal education in any subject might possibly know more about that subject than people with background in it whatever.

We've completely devalued educational accomplishment. People figure they know medicine better than doctors, people figure that they can 'homsechool' their children in subjects they themselves never took a class in better than a certified teacher in that subject can, people who've never passed one physics class assume they can school engineers in the physics of 9/11. etc etc.

There's a general revolt against education, the educated, science, the scientific method and the Enlightenment.

Three cheers for us, eh?

3/1/2013 03:16:43 am

T.,

"you don't have a leg to stand on and you know it"

That's your opinion. I have 2 legs and I'm confident. The authors of TIME's cover story 7 years ago and the Atlantic Monthly's January 2000 article, "The Diffusionists Have Landed" must similarly be discarded as "paranoid delusionals w/ persecution complexes". Face it, T., you've been cornered and you're lashing out with insults and delusions because you have nothing else to say. Again, please cite ANY diffusionist evidence submitted over the past decade and accepted for American archaeological committee peer review other than the token Solutrean Hypothesis by outcast Smithsonian archaeology curator Dennis Stanford that has been given a fair hearing. Otherwise my point they are a close-minded club intensively protective of their absolutist indifference toward diffusionism is valid, in a scientific survey context.

Do you concur that Dr. Stanford is also "a paranoid delusional" based on his November 2002 remark to BBC2 radio, "When you dig deeper than Clovis a lot of people do not report it because they're worried about the reaction of their colleagues"? Let's have some direct answers this time instead of "deflecting" my inquiries, shall we?

Mr. Randolph,

I've already beaten you up pretty badly in out intellectual sparring above in this thread, so I'll try to be gentle on your latest post.

You seem irritated with what you regard as a "stupid" American public, which is not unusual for the so-called scholars in your field, emboldened to make decrees as if entitled to display condescension to the great unwashed, educated populace. Institutional archaeology seems to identify with a dynastic view of elite power-accretors of the past who declare themselves immune from criticism. People aren't stupid, even the ancients were not primitives. A far greater percentage of those intrepid explorers of the Dark Ages knew celestial navigation and the rhythms of the night skies than most urbanized technocentrists of today consumed with social media, twittering and blogging. Even our host here confused the daily "greatest of the year" displacement of the sun along the horizon at the equinoxes with the solstice standstills. He's aligned with your dogma, but it was I that corrected his error in my first-ever post to this site on 1/22/2013 at 9:54pm at http://www.jasoncolavito.com/1/post/2013/01/review-of-america-unearthed-s01e05-a-deadly-sacrifice.html Of course, T. would have me banished from contributions to this discussion asserting I "lack anything informed or constructive to contribute". I pity this attitude of the "know-it-all" class comforted by their paper diplomas. As with the Wizard of Oz, they believe only they were granted brains.

There is a revolt against bad science and American archaeology continues to practice open bias 7 years after TIME authors Lemonick and Dorfman declared the time had come for "a new burst of scholarship about locations all over the Americas" asserting Kennewick Man and other finds would spur American archaeology to actually get off its lazy ass and take diffusionism seriously. That hasn't happened yet...and it is a certifiable fact you folks don't want to grapple with. Someone has to, and here that someone is me.

3/1/2013 04:07:53 am

Kean -

I'm not an archeologist. My educational and formal professional background is actually in political science and international development, although I haven't been directly involved in that field for several years either.

It so happens I'm interested in archeology, I took a few classes as an undergrad at my university, which coincidentally happens to have one of the most established and storied departments in this country (and why not take advantage of that with some electives?), with a museum collection that has few equals in the world. (This itself is a bit sad as the artifacts date from the Indiana Jones grab-and-run period when the patrimony of the host country was not considered).

As an adult with my own money instead of going to a beach for vacations I've been drawn to ruins and archeological sites as goals for trips, although much of the fun and education is the experience of the present-day cultures surrounding those sites.

I have respect for people who studied in the field (or any field) and don't presume to know more about them in their own field. I have a friend with a PhD in French, for example, and although I can hold my own conversationally & passed my proficiency exams (which incidentally is only because people in the department she came out of taught me and I listened), I correct my grammar accordingly when she gives me tips. She put the time in, she knows more about the subject than me. Period. Her degrees are symbolic of having put that time in and having gained that knowledge, the degrees don't make her correct. The degrees indicate she knows how to be correct.

I've also been on the receiving end of a few angry people telling me that some very basic, rote facts about government and international law were incorrect, & I made the error of pointing out to them that my specialization of study happened to be in the specific area in question. That really set people off; there's a decided anti-intellectual attitude in this country that a degree in any subject is just a license to lie. As I'm from a working class background myself I unfortunately recognize this shared mental disorder as being on par with the Ghost Dance and the Mau Mau. You have socially defeated people denying reality in the face of reality beating the crap out of them.

For the past 3 years or so there's been an unhinged woman I know dropped out of the 10th grade following me around the web, insisting that I'm wrong about a very simple poli sci issue. It's not about the issue, I know, it's about her need to "prove" that not having an educational is equal or even superior to having one, seeing as it's all just elitist ivory tower propaganda, and anyone can Google anything, so we're all equal and all of our ideas are equal... right?

AU and AA and the Truthers and all of this other nonsense appear to spring from this same mass delusional derangement. Large portions of American society have gone mad.

3/1/2013 04:33:23 am

Continuing, the stupidity of the American public for me isn't that they don't know things. A lot of people never had great educational opportunities for a variety of reasons and I don't beat people up about that. There for the grace of a functioning public school system and scholarship $ go I. I certainly believe that most people have a capacity to learn. Anyone who has an informed opinion on NFL secondary coverages for example - I just described tens of millions of working class Americans - certainly has the intellectual raw material to follow any number of academic discussions, at least after learning some facts and having a concept of a difference between fact and opinion.

It's the refusal to admit that people who've spent more time (or ANY time) focusing on an academic subject than you know more about it which is stupid. "Unwise" at the least and most polite, but also self-defeatingly stupid IMO. It's STUPID to equate a little Googling and dabbling with peer review and career-long gathering of knowledge and experience.

And it's STUPID to claim that there's a conspiracy to keep down people who've never been bothered to subject themselves to disciplined, tutored study and peer reviewed work.

Speaking of that, I do also have a friend who worked as a professional archeologist. He studied here in PA and also in NM, has advanced degrees and had been working for the US Forest Service as a contractor.

Eventually he left the field in favor of nursing, because it looked like he wasn't going to get permanent full-time work as he'd like, wasn't going to be able top sink his teeth into long-term projects. He's also from a working class background and his family isn't made of money, so leaving the field was a practical consideration, I GUARANTEE you if he or thousands like him had the opportunity to prove history-rewriting finds in the US, he'd be JUMPING ON IT, not covering it up! Use your head.

3/1/2013 05:04:36 am

The stupidity of Barry Fell - see, PhDs can be stupid too - is in assuming that although he needed to rise through the zoology ranks through years of careful tutored study and peer review, this simply didn't apply to himself and/or archeology.

He appointed himself a superior expert in North American archeology, AND the Maori AND the Celts AND the Egyptians AND etc etc, expert enough to discredit everyone in all of those fields all at once.

Stupid.

For someone who wants to talk about Arab ancestors in North America, you spend a lot of time not talking about it. How about you address the following, the burden of which is all on you:

- Why no coastal sites for Arab presence on the continent? Why is the only site in Colorado?
- Why did these people leave no artifacts?
- What possible purpose do you imagine would send someone who'd never been to the Americas before all the way to Colorado? Might a group not establish some sort of coastal presence before venturing inland to the continental divide..?
- Do you assert these people went east or west from Arabia, and why do you think this?
- What do you make of the fact that this is all mighty convenient for Mormonism? Coincidence, or is the Book of Mormon a historically accurate document?
- Why do you imagine that scholars in the Arab world except for one guy connected to BYU are indifferent to all of this?

3/1/2013 05:43:10 am

Chris,

I appreciate the far more civil tone you've chosen to take with me. Thank you.

w/r/t attacks on Dr. Barry Fell, a New Zealander education at the University of Edinburgh, and a seasoned traveller in his pursuit of his primary field of study, Marine Biology. This man is not the fraud you say he was. He was a scholar whose interests in diffusionism and epigraphy naturally arose from world travels. He was a best-selling author, though he peddled theories you and mainstream archaeology persist in condemning years after his death. I won't rehash my history with him, which is a mixed bag and shall remain confidential. But he was no fraud, had good intentions and applied the same kind of scholarship to his work as a self-educated epigrapher, though, as subjective as transliterations and translations are, he did commit some errors. You may feel that alone discredits him. Sorry, I disagree. Thomas Edison tested a couple thousand filaments before his light bulb worked.

- Why no coastal sites for Arab presence on the continent? Why is the only site in Colorado?

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Furthermore, the Colorado sites are in remote, unpopulated regions not subject to coastal tides, hurricanes, residential and commercial development of the past few centuries that have substantially churned the earth. No archaeological digs in Colorado have been authorized, largely for the reasons I've previously specified: American archaeologist doesn't wish to be disturbed of rocked of their dogma for looking at anomalous petroglyphic evidence not supportive on indigenous cultures.

- Why did these people leave no artifacts?

I don't know that they didn't, but I would be breaking the law if I were to excavate on public lands in search of artifacts that might lurk below the surface.

- What possible purpose do you imagine would send someone who'd never been to the Americas before all the way to Colorado? Might a group not establish some sort of coastal presence before venturing inland to the continental divide..?

Colorado is home to a portion of the Continental Divide, yes; but the Purgatoire River is far lower than even Denver's mile high altitude. What I imagine doesn't matter, and if it did and I took your gambit, you'd find a way to criticize me for fabrication. True, Arab sailors may have rested in a coastal settlement before heading up-river, but I am no mind reader. Perhaps, as with Ponce de Leon, they had a mission in mind. Lewis and Clark sought a northwest passage. Some speculation might claim pure, artesian water deposits were sought. Maybe they were traders, maybe explorers. All I know is the Dhofari petroglyphs and a carving of an ancient seafaring vessel are clearly existent on a cliff named Bear Rock deep in America's heartland. Is this a mirage or an illusion? No, it is not. This evidence begs for further investigation.

- Do you assert these people went east or west from Arabia, and why do you think this?

Hell, I don't know. Why do you ask? Do have the answer?

- What do you make of the fact that this is all mighty convenient for Mormonism? Coincidence, or is the Book of Mormon a historically accurate document?

The fact is the petroglyphs exist. I don't know how to answer your question, but you've earlier attempted to malign my motives by so asserting and I have denied to you, point blank, I have any water to carry for the Mormons. Would you drop this, please. It's not winning you any fans or scoring any points to pursue this as a faith-based crusade "convenience". Nor will I over-reach as you have to accuse Ali Ahmed Ali Ash-Shahri of being a puppet for BYU. Sometimes, people with special interests want to hear from advocates of diffusionism not necessarily to convert them, but to further a pet theory. I'm not buying into the Lost Tribes of Israel, so drop it. Again, the anomalous petroglyphs clearly weathered with dark patine exist. Deal with THAT.

- Why do you imagine that scholars in the Arab world except for one guy connected to BYU are indifferent to all of this?

I am not sure that's true, are you? You are welcome to reach Ali via the American Consulate in Oman for your answer.

3/1/2013 07:39:22 am

I'm enjoying how you've desperately stooped to attacking me by recycling the things I've used to describe you and then follow it up by proving everything I've stated is correct ( i.e that you’re uninformed and paranoid ). Thanks for that. Diffusionism is a cult. It hasn't passed peer review because it can't. No matter what you say or how you try to distract from this fact by accusing others of all manner of nonsense your position is no more valid now than it was ten posts ago. Feel free to keep attempting to rope others into treating you like an equal on this subject. We know better, don't we?

3/1/2013 07:53:12 am

T.,

I amused by you. Not threatened and not intimidated and certainly not paranoid. BTW, are you a licensed psychotherapist and since when do they diagnose conditions on blog sites?

I'll repeat, because you don't get it: "Let's have some direct answers this time instead of "deflecting" my inquiries, shall we?"

You claim "diffusionism is a cult". That's nonsense and betrays your desperation to argue matters intelligently.

I've posed 2 very direct questions for you which you "deflect" in your own words...

1-) Kindly cite where and when mainstream American archaeology in their committee peer review over the past decade has accepted for peer review any theory suggesting diffusionism, excepting Dennis Stanford's unpopular Solutrean Hypothesis. (they did that reluctantly because of the mans stature as curator of archaeology for the Smithsonian). Go ahead, tell me archaeology merits anything but myopia.

2-) Do you believe Dennis Stanford's quote on BBC2 radio, "When you dig deeper than Clovis a lot of people do not report it because they're worried about the reaction of their colleagues" reveals him as much a "paranoid delusional" as me in revealing the anti-diffusionist behavioral tendencies shared by his archaeological brethren. Please include your professional credentials for proffering such a diagnosis over the internet.

Thank you, T. You are so superior to us all, aren't you?

3/1/2013 07:58:43 am

"He was a scholar whose interests in diffusionism and epigraphy naturally arose from world travels."

Nothing "natural" about that. I've been to archeological sites on 5 continents and such a thing never would have occurred to me. In fact it's because I made some effort to understand what competent professionals had to say about said sites that I reject these fairy tales.

"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

Probably the most abused sentence on the web! As a matter of fact, a total absence of evidence for a positive claim is the primary reason not to make it. You also have to explain why your coastal seafaring culture is spending enough time away from water to make inscriptions at a site which must have been important to them. Makes no sense. Aside from this:

"the Colorado sites are in remote, unpopulated regions not subject to coastal tides, hurricanes, residential and commercial development of the past few centuries that have substantially churned the earth"

That's just silly and stupid. Most of the archeological finds ever made are in areas subject to erosion, storms, tides and commercial development. In fact the latter is a MAJOR BOON to discovery. Richard III's skeleton, read that story? Do you know that much of the Roman Forum and nearby ruins in the city of Rome (at the Torre Argentina for example) were uncovered by Mussolini-era construction projects? These are two minor examples. It seems that no one can dig a basement for a Starbucks in Europe without uncovering a mosaic or a battlefield. My friend the former professional archeologist was usually employed by the Forest Service to check ahead of logging and oil access roads for sites before the road construction crews would tear into/disturb them. This practice started because the crews doing commercial work would find artifacts REPEATEDLY, only not being archeologists they weren't digging for that purpose and the sites would be hard to study all torn up. You make statements like this and it just shows you've no idea what you're talking about.

3/1/2013 08:37:07 am

If you don't like the answers, don't ask your silly leading questions. As if I can divine details of the back story, where these guys stopped along the way, what their motives were (maybe the WERE lost tribal members blown off course by hurricane, but horror of horror, that might validate Joseph Smith), and whether they pissed in the Atlantic or Pacific on their way over.

"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence," may offend you, however you cannot claim with certainty seafarers didn't have encampments elsewhere simply because they have not (yet?) been found. Or are we to presume American archaeology, in addition to having purely unbiased viewpoints on raw data, are omniscient and can psychically declare a priori none exist anywhere in any coastal crag above or below sea level. Are YOU ready to conclude that? Again, absence of evidence IS NOT evidence of absence. Deal with it.

Oh, and for visitors who may have forgotten the basis for our epic thread here, I again provide a video link next to my name on THIS post, 3 minutes of evidentiary presentation by an Arab linguist who happens to know what he's talking about and may have incidentally spoken at BYU, unadulterated by Mr. Randolph's leap of faith that that make Ali and me stooges for Mormon origins in America. What hogwash. Let's examine why these petroglyphs are in Colorado.

BTW, Mr. Randolph, repeating one of the sillier questions you posed: "Might a group not establish some sort of coastal presence before venturing inland to the continental divide..?"

For your benefit, the Continental Divide courses some 650 miles across western Colorado linked by several 14,000+ foot elevation mountain ranges. The Purgatoire River, specifically Bear Rock on the Purgatoire River where the ancient seafaring petroglyph is visible high above the cliff floor, is at an elevation of about 4500 feet above sea level in southeastern Colorado.

Maybe they journeyed farther west to the Continental Divide. Let's you and me hike sometime to rule out your presumption they left ancient Arab artifacts along the Continental Divide Trail. If not, does that in anyway diminish the presence of a linguistic match 10K feet lower with Oman petroglyphs halfway around the world?

3/1/2013 08:49:37 am

"may have incidentally spoken at BYU"

HA! The man was fed petroglyphs that mostly match by people whose faith tells them Middle Easterners settled the American West at just that time as a matter of faith. No university that isn't run by and for Mormons is interested.

This would be like importing a linguist from Italy to "verify" that the letters on Wolter's Arizona tablets looked like the Latin alphabet. So what - how does that verify the authenticity of the tablets in any way? Of course it doesn't.

3/1/2013 09:08:06 am

OK, I get it that you're a highly skeptical guy wound up in a conspiracy theory of your own device. You earlier accused me of racism for advocating ancient Irish in Colorado and Oklahoma. Then you equivocally diminished a Muslim researcher whom I advocated. Are you against dark-skinned people. Are they all stooges for BYU? Give me a break. Were the Irish here for Joseph Smith, too. How about the Utes of Arapahoe whose archaeoastronomy I am the only TV reporter to have documented along the Purgatoire River at the Pathfinder summit? I'm advocating for the higher intellectual interests of Native American's as well, while drawing a distinction in the Apishapa pecked petroglyph style from the presumed Celtic/Persian Ogham captioned archaeoastronomy nearby using variegated grooves. I'm presenting evidence that ought to stimulate the interest of truly curious archaeologists ready to compare, contrast, but importantly JUST EXAMINE this stuff. And all you can do is your rapid-fire, machine gun obliteration, using different caliber bullets and different assigned motives for my tendency to want to communicate that which archaeology prefer to subvert and hide from the public with a veil of official ignorance. How scientific is that? Check the link and fire away.
The subject petroglyphs are what they are. They are

3/1/2013 09:08:16 am

""Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence," may offend you"

It doesn't offend me, you're just misapplying it. This isn't about my feelings, it's about you being illogical.

This bit is insane:

"- Do you assert these people went east or west from Arabia, and why do you think this?

Hell, I don't know. Why do you ask? Do have the answer?"

I believe the answer is 'neither.' What's NUTS is that you are quite sure that proto-Arabs were in Colorado 1700 or so years ago... but you have NO IDEA whether they crossed the Atlantic or Pacific... and are apparently indifferent at the question, even indignant about it!

How is that not an absolutely vital portion of your claim?!

We don't have any artifacts of your proto-Arabs in America. Apparently the site was important enough for petroglyphs but not important enough to leave ANY of the traces we find for EVERY other group of people when they've established a community somewhere. These are apparently people who took littering seriously; maybe they saw that old commercial with Iron Eyes Cody (himself also a ethnic fraud...).

We don't have any Arab scholars clamoring to examine the site, not with all of the Arabian peninsula's resources at their disposal. Interesting, that.

3/1/2013 10:33:37 am

Mr. Randolph confesses, "My educational and formal professional background is actually in political science..."

No wonder he ignores logic: 1-) portable artifacts may be present below the soil, in situ, 2-) archaeologists aren't investigating nor authorizing digs, 3-) if I excavate without a permit on public land I can go to jail, 4-) therefore due to a lack of portable artifacts next to the petroglyph of an ancient sailing vessel, heavily patinated on a Colorado bluff a thousand miles from the ocean, disregard THAT as evidence.

Only a poli sci geek can spin, twist, obfuscate, dismiss and tell us, "don't believe you eyes" and certainly "don't wonder why this is in Indian country". Just go about your business and trust American archaeology they have every right to tell us to "move along, there's nothing to see."

I'm a video documentarian and I refuse to be bullied by a poll sci mentality that is de facto illogical. Thanks for playing the game, Christopher Randolph, but you've lost public sympathy for your disingenuous attacks that come from left field regardless of what story is all about. Keep up the conspiracy mongering. It suits you so well.

3/1/2013 11:08:45 am

Keane,
You're just a sad, angry fanatic. No amount of logic or proof would ever convince you because you have a personal grudge that will never be satisfied. You feel your friend has been slighted by the academic community, you believed him and now he's gone. Everyone who has responded to you has answered your ridiculous questions over and over. You just don't like that the answer is always that it's not on the academic community to make your case for you. Period. I hope others will acknowledge that responding to your idiotic points directly only encourages your psychosis and stop. You're not worth talking to.

3/1/2013 11:48:48 am

T. asserts, "Everyone who has responded to you has answered your ridiculous questions over and over."

Au contraire, T. You've twice sidestepped answering my questions and you know it. Why is that?

To clearly repeat my direct inquiries you've consciously chosen to avoid:

1-) please cite ANY diffusionist evidence submitted over the past decade and accepted for American archaeological committee peer review other than the token Solutrean Hypothesis by outcast Smithsonian archaeology curator Dennis Stanford that has been given a fair hearing.

2-) Do you concur that Dr. Stanford is also "a paranoid delusional" based on his November 2002 remark to BBC2 radio, "When you dig deeper than Clovis a lot of people do not report it because they're worried about the reaction of their colleagues"?

Go for it, dude.

Brian

12/3/2014 04:05:00 pm

Scott Wolter is a silly fraud. He should get a security guard card so he can stay up all night listening to coast to coast.

tubby

2/26/2013 05:34:45 am

Wait, doesn't drinking unicorn blood make you immortal? This could be the grain of truth behind the fountain of youth in Florida! The Native Americans were drinking unicorn blood!

2/26/2013 02:30:56 pm

Worked for Voldemort.

Tome

2/26/2013 06:02:16 am

Unicorn blood? Isn't that used to drive ancient alien spaceships?

Mila

2/26/2013 09:13:37 am

I went a little bit further to find about unicorns as I have found paintings of unicorns on Alchemy website.

Heide Proksch art, for example. http://www.fantastic-art.at/tapis/framesetwerkee.htm

Unicorn can also be found in The Dictionnaire Infernal (Infernal Dictionary), a book on demonology, organized in hellish hierarchies’

Image of Amdusias from Collin de Plancy's Dictionnaire Infernal (1863)
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Amdusias.jpg

Amdusias is mentioned as a King in Johann Weyer's Pseudomonarchia Daemonum (1583).

Johann Weyer (1515 - 1588) was a Dutch physician, occultist, and demonologist, disciple and follower of Heinrich Cornelius Agrippa. His most influential work is Praestigiis Daemonum et Incantationibus ac Venificiis (On the Illusions of the Demons and on Spells and Poisons, 1563)

Sigmund Freud was engrossed in the Praestigiis Daemonum, calling it one of the ten most significant books of all time! lol

CFC

2/26/2013 12:32:22 pm

Jason,
You really outdid yourself on this one. The best line was when the "pigs escaped and went feral, becoming the razorbacks of the South." Thanks for your incredible humor and intellect!!!

2/26/2013 12:34:10 pm

I'm glad you enjoyed the piece, but I do have to report that the razorback connection is a real theory put forward by actual scholars. If you click the link in the sentence, you'll see. The best hoaxes are those built on a foundation of truth!

2/26/2013 12:40:06 pm

Thanks for the clarification. What an entertaining story. I've passed it around to others.

2/26/2013 12:44:40 pm

And now you can tell anyone who tries to claim that the Templars were in America that they rode unicorns, too!

Mary Andersen

2/26/2013 12:42:28 pm

Jason: You need to get a job and a life.

2/26/2013 04:26:18 pm

Mary,
How much of your life have you wasted reading this site?
You need to get a job and a life.

L Bean

2/27/2013 04:55:52 am

Oh Mary, Mary, Mary. Free lessons in keyboard warriorism are available in the gift shop.

2/27/2013 07:08:06 am

Jason did a good job. He saved me lots of my time because I didn’t know many writers with abundance of fantasy and distortions. I think that his website is good for a person who starts his own research and moves on. I have done that when I noticed that there are subjects that he avoids. Not good for a journalist who should exercise objectivity. Well, as Benjamin Franklin said, “half a truth is often a great lie” or Truman, “If you can’t convince them, confuse them" LOL!

BillUSA

11/30/2013 03:19:57 am

So, like a diffusionist, you suggest that Jason delve into subjects that he may not be qualified to examine?

5/4/2013 06:06:17 pm

I was just thinking that as well. Far too much time on his hands.... but then again, if this is how he wants to spend hours and hours of his time.... better him than me.

2/26/2013 03:42:04 pm

Several points:

1) I think AMERICA UNHINGED should be a recurring topic. My ex-wife several times told me that, since I knew the literature so well, I should write my own conspiracy theory, alternative history, or catastrophist theory, publish it and gain my own cult following. Find a sponsor to put up a cash prize, have a contest, and I'll be set for life. Oh, and AMERICA UNHINGED needs theme music. You can probably get one for next to nothing from those guys who write the news themes for every big storm of the winter. Either that or steal a piece from a Brian Eno album.

2) You left out a step on your way to using up your travel budget for the episode. Before going to England, you need to go to Denmark to visit the Danish national museum where Ole Worm's collections are now housed. As a Lovecraftian, I'm sure you know who Worm was. In the museum are many unicorn horns. It doesn't matter that Worm argued that unicorn horns were narwhal horns (he was only partially right); Denmark gives you a Viking connection.

3) Why did you debunk yourself? Think of how much fun you deprived your readers of. Heck, I already had a several hundred word blog post composed in my mind by the time I got to the end of your post. Boo.

2/26/2013 05:10:45 pm

"I think AMERICA UNHINGED should be a recurring topic."

Yes, very much so. Just today I had to battle some race panic over at the Amazon seller message boards, where an incredibly racist thread was in progress, attacking Amazon's Indian employees. Semi-literate cretins with the standard inability to spell or punctuate simple English sentences [this is ALWAYS the pattern!] claimed that the Indian call center folks - who would generally mop the floor with the average seller on the SAT verbal - didn't have the English language chops to be doing their jobs.

It was also suggested that Indians have (unnamed) cultural flaws which preclude them from being able to provide customer service.

When I pointed out the absurd hypocrisy and racism in the thread, not only was my post the one removed from the board, but I rec'd a threatening email that I need to leave the message boards or else people would order products from me to leave negative feedback, make claims that I'm sending faulty products and get me banned from selling on the site.

I've reported this all to Amazon & I feel more confident that given my excellent track record I'll be spared, but it's quite stunning. 21st century Klan-level activity. I was then accused of "playing the race card" by people who just played the whole race DECK. It reminds me exactly of the defenses in the comments of this blog of the evident racism underlying AA and AU, and the claim that those of us who don't think there's an academic conspiracy to discredit European explorers are "playing the race card."

How dare anyone call racism racism. How dare we.

Parallels with the Birthers and the 9/11 Truthers (i.e. Arabs "could not have" flown planes into the world's largest buildings, planes in which a trained professional already did the tricky work of successfully taking off). My answer to the 9/11 people on that has always been that if you're in the cockpit of a plane, and the WTC is in directly front of you, YOU'RE GOING TO HIT IT. Why, "even" an Arab could figure that out.

The underlining assumption is that only a/n (white) American can outsmart a/n (white) American. It had to be white authority figures, it had to be an inside job. Arabs "could not" and therefore did not do it. (I've also joked that the 9/11 movement is so racist in these assumptions that they'd make an understandable al Qaeda target for that reason alone!)

Even/especially the movies are unhinged. Argo for example appears to have in reality a mundane story in which the Canadian ambassador's wife bought some plane tickets for Americans who were never asked any questions about their cover and just went to the airport and left.

Hollywood has turned that into a narrative in which Persian animal-people were outsmarted by the great white American.

This litany of things that Argo flat out got wrong was compiled by Iranian-American Nima Shirazi:

http://www.wideasleepinamerica.com/2013/02/oscar-prints-the-legend-argo.html

It's no accident that all of these unhinged tales are happening at once. Jason has it right, they tap into a crazed zeitgeist of people who feel they are being invaded by aliens.

2/27/2013 04:53:31 am

Fantastic! So glad to see Shirazi's article spread around. Talk about rewriting history and the power of suggestion....Argo was by far the slicker of the two "CIA movies" up for an Oscar, miles more insidious than that made-for-TV Bin Laden flick.

2/26/2013 06:06:24 pm

In 2010, this fake video was put out by the Ontario Science Centre to draw attention to an exhibition on mythical creatures. They soon admitted it was a hoax, but as you can see by the comments, the video got worldwide coverage.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AqDqewZrsNs

People want to believe!

Matt

2/27/2013 12:36:12 am

There is a good reason why America Unearthed has contributed to your readership so much lately. When we have gone on Google to read more about Scott Wolter or the show in general, they do not have a real web presence. Your site has a very high listing for the search term "America Unearthed", and is really the only spot on the web that is discussing the show.

I think the vast majority of us know its a fictional show, along with AA, but really enjoy the escapism it provides. Much like the old Leonard Nimoy shows they produced 30 years ago about some of these subjects or Unsolved Mysteries, we like to say "what if" in our minds. My advice to you is, don't take all this so seriously. If we wanted a dose of reality we would turn off the tv and stare at the wall. Save the peer review for the 9-5 ( I am also a scientist ) and daydream a little.

Lynn Brant

2/27/2013 01:30:12 am

You say, you're a scientist. I wonder, have you seen any reality TV shows that mocked your field with such blatant distortions? It's easier to say "what if" and engage in suspension of disbelief for entertainment, when the subject and science under attack isn't your own.

Rocky R Rockbourne

3/1/2013 04:03:39 am

Archaeology isn't even my field, and this show offends me because it makes a mockery of so many things. There's the covert racism behind many of its claims, the delusions of persecution of its host, and the pseudoscientific approach it generally takes. While certainly I could pretend that it's just entertainment, I don't think that would change the fact that it is pretending to be something more than that. Hitler might have just been comic relief, for example, if nobody had believed him; however, we can see what happens when people believe stupid things, and that's why people should be offended, I think, by this kind of stupidity. Not that I think Scott Wolter will cause a holocaust, but he certainly enables stupidity, and stupidity is capable of great evil.

2/27/2013 04:46:48 am

People are Googling to 'read more about Scott Wolter', that much is true, but for the most part it's in a spirit of bewildered indignation and disgust.

I'd go as far as to say that the majority of negative comments directed towards this blogger's pwnage are from the show's affiliates and useful-idiot participants.

Fact is, nothing is more effective than good satire in the face of fanaticism and snake oil. It buuuurrnns.

3/14/2013 01:42:15 pm

Case in point. I was blissfully ignorant until I happened to watch last episode and am still trying to recover from the experience. Had to make sure I wasn't watching some sinister version of Comedy Central. Google search sent me to this most informative, entertaining and objective site. I found Colavito via Woller,which works just fine for me. Now if I could only get me a hooked x unicorn!

2/27/2013 01:12:11 am

Matt

If AA were marketed as fiction then it would be fine to take it lightly, but it is not. The program claims to change history and that Wolter has developed a new science. None of this is true. The program is dishonest and Jason is providing real leadership in outing this fraud.

2/27/2013 01:12:55 am

Matt - I meant AU - America Unearthed.

Thorne

2/27/2013 02:54:03 am

I can just see it! Right now the producers over at AU are launching a massive witch hunt to find the person who leaked the script for their blockbuster, cliffhanger season finale.

Well done, Jason. I'll add my vote: there should be more of these.

2/27/2013 04:28:42 am

ROTFLMAO! It's a masterpiece, Mr. Colavito!

Cathleen Anderson

2/27/2013 04:42:23 am

I enjoyed reading this.

2/27/2013 03:17:22 pm

I'm just saying that these shows aren't produced to be science, and their saying "this is the hidden truth" is very tongue-in-cheek. I don't know anyone who watches it for anything other than entertainment. I am sure there are some who do, but who in the world could take the guy on AA with the crazy black hair that looks like he stuck his finger in a light socket seriously?

I do enjoy this blog, and I look forward to Jason writing some more informational pieces on real archaeology. He is very enjoyable to read.

3/1/2013 03:55:12 am

Matt, some people take America Unearthed seriously. People I know, in fact. I doubt they take Ancient Aliens seriously, but that's because it doesn't conform to their preferred brand of alternative history (i.e. divine intervention rather than extraterrestrial).

11/30/2013 03:27:07 am

Matt, you're almost there...

Jake

2/28/2013 04:52:38 pm

A pretty inventive Dan Brown mess of quasi-historical nonsense, that's good stuff. Although I didn't see anything in there about aliens (unless I missed that part).

One thing though, you and I have talked about the burden of proof before. It's not about having to accept things as true until prove false, it's about having to accept things as possible until proven impossible. For instance if I say aliens exist and you say they don't and neither one of us has proof either way then we both must concede it is just as possible aliens do exist as it is they don't exist. If I say God is real and you say God isn't real but neither one of us has proof either way, we both must accept the possibility that does exist is equal to the possibility that God doesn't exist. You place the entire burden of proof on the one making the claim, but the truth is the person who refutes that claim has an equal share in that burden. If neither side has proof that the other is wrong, both sides are forced to admit that the other is possibly correct.

2/28/2013 09:28:55 pm

Yes, the entire burden falls on the one making the claim. That's how the burden of proof works in every field of science.

What you are describing is agnosticism, which is also how science views claims: Science views any claim as potentially possible, but repeated testing shows what is probable. Science works in probabilities, and a claim whose probability of truth is vanishingly small is rejected. It is POSSIBLE but not PROBABLE and therefore is rejected until an advocate can prove it exists. See: unicorns, phlogiston, Bigfoot, etc.

"Exist" and "doesn't exist" are opposites but not equals. Otherwise, why don't you spend your time and money trying prove phlogiston exists? Surely you must accept that it's POSSIBLE that it is real and therefore EQUAL to oxidation as an explanation of rust.

3/1/2013 05:01:02 am

You're still thinking in such small terms. Science does not work in probabilities alone, it also works in possibilities. If science did not work in possibilities no new discoveries would ever be made. Before Copernicus postulated that Earth revolved around the Sun what was the probability this was true? Before the Wright brothers flew at Kitty Hawk what was the probability man would ever fly? Before Armstrong stepped foot on the moon what was the probability we would ever be able to do that? You have such narrow vision. If scientists don't except anything and everything as possible then why would they ever conduct research into anything? If science doesn't think it's possible we'll contact alien life then why do so many devote their lives to SETI and the like? What is the probability that science will find a cure for cancer or discover the secret to longer life; I can tell you those odds are not good yet science is working on both of those. You have such limited vision man. You think that because something is improbable it is impossible, I think improbable still means possible and I hate to tell you this but history and science are on my side on this one.

3/1/2013 05:27:50 am

You are confusing a hypothesis to be tested (a possibility) with the results of the testing (probability).

2/28/2013 08:14:00 pm

Should end this with an Edward J. Olmos voice-over saying "It's too bad she don't last, eh? But who does?" and a shot of an origami unicorn sitting on a dusty desk.

3/1/2013 05:52:11 am

Jason - "You are confusing a hypothesis to be tested (a possibility) with the results of the testing (probability)."

I'm not confusing anything. That is exactly what we're talking about. We're talking about the possibility of a hypothesis. You say that a hypothesis (ancient aliens for example) is improbable and therefore false even before you have definitive proof that it is false. The sole basis of your position is that it is improbable and therefore should be disregarded. Obviously the theory that aliens visited us in antiquity is improbable but that does not mean it is false, improbable does mean impossible. There are so many instances of improbable theories being proven throughout history. True science does not dismiss the improbable simply because it is improbable. True science accepts that anything is possible, even if it is improbable, until proven otherwise. Which brings me back to the burden of proof. Until you have definitive proof that disproves a theory you must accept it as possible, even if it is improbable. You can have your opinions and your suspicions about a theory but without proof you cannot dismiss any theory as false, no matter how improbable. A remember a theory is not law, a theory is an idea that has yet to be proven one way or the other.

3/1/2013 06:14:38 am

So, for you the jury is still out on gravity? Or evolution?

How is this, for example: One possibility is that the devil fabricated all the fossils in the world to make it look like there had been dinosaurs. Until you can prove otherwise, how can we deny the possibility that all dinosaur fossils are demonic fakes?

(Lest you think me facetious, Jean Hardouin seriously proposed that all the archaeological evidence for antiquity had been hoaxed by the Catholic Church. Prove him wrong.)

The ancient alien idea has been tested time and again, and the specific claims the advocates make don't hold up. I have always said that the idea of alien contact is POSSIBLE, but we can't test possibilities. We can only test specific claims (e.g., the Nazca lines served as runways for spaceships). If none of the specific claims hold up (and they don't), then we have no reason to believe the broader hypothesis they supposedly support.

So, do you accept phlogiston, devil's fossils, etc. as equal to oxidation, evolution, etc.? Or am I the only one who is supposed to be forbidden from drawing conclusions from evidence?

3/1/2013 08:10:59 am

"True science does not dismiss the improbable simply because it is improbable. True science accepts that anything is possible, even if it is improbable, until proven otherwise."

I'm not sure that's quite the case, unless you define 'true science' differently than true scientists. The missing link here seems to be falsifiability -- if a theory cannot be falsified, i.e. if it is unfalsifiable, it's not in the realm of science. It could be in the realm of metaphysics, religion, pseudoscience, archaeoastronomy, or something else, but it's not science proper, and won't lead to the most useful results.

The problem here seems to be when people lock on to that .00000001% chance that a theory might be correct, and then move on that outside chance as if it were already proved (kind of like WMD in Iraq, actually). That's not the sanest way to go through the world. I suppose there's a .000000001% chance that my beagles will be eaten by a dragon when I walk them this afternoon, but covering them with armor and walking them while carrying a lance and an asbestos shield -- while undeniably cool -- would be too burdensome to be useful. (Walking two beagles at once is sometimes too burdensome to be useful...)

"Until you have definitive proof that disproves a theory you must accept it as possible, even if it is improbable."

That seems to be an odd construction as well. Since when does the burden of proof fall on the subject not sufficiently impressed by the evidence for the claim? There's an alternative history "phantom time" theory that argues the history of the Dark Ages were a fabrication by the Holy Roman empire. Given the vast amount of archaeological evidence, I'm not sufficiently impressed that the theory is either probable or possible. But you're saying I have to have definitive proof to disprove the phantom time theory for it not to be accepted as possible? It's my job to prove that the theory of phantom time is wrong, and not the phantom time theorists job to prove to me that it's right? If that's the case, and a preponderance of evidence is meaningless and that farthest outside possible chance of something is enough for you to go on, then what would possibly qualify something as falsifiable. If you can't imagine it?

3/1/2013 06:45:46 am

As someone with an IQ over 165 and who has turned MENSA down several times now I would think you would know that gravity in fact has not been proven definitively because we still don't know what causes it. Evolution has also not been proven definitively because where we used to think we were descendants of Neanderthal recent findings have shown that to be incorrect; and now we're finding there may have been several humanoid species we are possibly descended from. So no, neither of those has been proven definitively which is why they are still called THEORIES. I figured someone of your vast intellect would know the definition of a theory. I accept all things as possible, even if improbable. The probability of such theories as the devil fossil theory causes me to have my own opinions on those theories but I cannot rule them out entirely without proof. I make no declarations of anything being impossible without proof that indicates such. That is the difference between you and me, you declare things to be impossible based solely on your own determination of their probability; I accept all things to be possible even if highly improbable, until they are proven otherwise. That is how logic works. Logic accounts for both probability and possibility, not one or the other. Science works that way as well. Many scientists conduct experiments not just to prove theories but also to disprove them because they understand that until a theory is disproven it is still possible.

3/1/2013 06:51:53 am

So my Socratic method worked. I have gotten you to say what you really think, which is that no probability is sufficient to warrant your acceptance. Given that there is nothing that anyone can say or do to provide sufficient proof for you, there is really nothing left to talk about. In your view, there can be no facts because all can be doubted and wherever there is doubt, one cannot judge.

I think that about says it all.

3/1/2013 06:59:26 am

You didn't comprehend a single word I said. I said until proof (facts) are presented that disproves a theory, that theory must be accepted as possible, even if highly improbable. Improbability is not proof. Any mathematician will tell you that .00000001 is not zero. Just admit that what you're arguing is that it's ok to dismiss a theory as bogus without any proof whatsoever based what you believe to be the probability of that theory being correct. What's really happening here is that I've poked a hole in your flawed logic and you can't stand the notion of having to admit it may be possible that aliens visited Earth during the Stone Age or that Romans may have come to America or that the Kensington Rune Stone may be real. You've spent so much time arguing that all these are impossible because they are improbable and now I've turned that notion on its head and you can't stand that.

3/1/2013 07:05:10 am

You can't prove a negative, Jake. All an experiment can prove is that the effect wasn't observed THAT TIME. Repeated tests can show that the effect isn't observed multiple times, and eventually the probability of the effect becomes low. But it will NEVER reach zero because you can never prove something will NEVER happen. There might be a 0.0000000000000001% chance that all the experiments are wrong, but there will always be a chance. Here I must say that it is you, not I, who are exhibiting ignorance of how science and statistics work.

Name a single fact you accept as proven true (or false) beyond all doubt.

3/1/2013 06:52:07 am

Jake,

You nailed that one. Congrats!

Michigan Relic

8/18/2020 12:59:22 pm

"...it may be possible that aliens visited Earth during the Stone Age or that Romans may have come to America..."

Mr. Colavito isn't saying that these things aren't possible. He's saying that these things have as yet no good evidence to support them despite the fact that if they were true the evidence ought to be readily available, and that therefore they are very unlikely to be true. He's also saying that things that are very unlikely to be true should be labeled as such, and not given the same credence as things which, because there is a lot of good evidence for them, are much more likely.

3/1/2013 06:58:19 am

Jake,

We don't know what we don't know. We take our best guesses at reality, but nothing we can claim is 100% certain.

Nassim Haramein, a self-educated theoretical physicist, may have become the first to assemble a mathematically solid Unified Field Theory that assigns an energy equivalence to the Big Bang to the Vacuum Density that pervades nearly all of the Universe. In short, we're all black holes interacting with the vacuum density...and what we perceive as tangible is, in fact, just an illusion created by impacted and condensed energy. Wow! But it's only a theory that largely contradicts an otherwise Newtonian view of tactile reality.

3/1/2013 07:05:50 am

You're exactly right, we don't know what we don't know and to make declarations about what we don't know based solely on probability is inaccurate.

I've heard theories like that before. The film "What the Bleep Do We Know" deals with a theory similar to that. That everything is all a matter of perception and that all matter is constantly phasing in and out of existence. I don't necessarily agree with those theories but obviously I accept them as possible until proven otherwise.

3/2/2013 05:57:43 am

"I've heard theories like that before. The film "What the Bleep Do We Know" deals with a theory similar to that. That everything is all a matter of perception and that all matter is constantly phasing in and out of existence. I don't necessarily agree with those theories but obviously I accept them as possible until proven otherwise."

Not wise but I have accepted them as possible until I have done my research about participants. Prof. Albert, one of participants and a quantum physicist, openly voiced his disappointment because they chose parts from his interview that fit their theory and rejected the rest. He said that quantum physic has nothing to do with spirituality and consciousness. Second, William Arntz, who co-directed the film along with Betsy Chasse and Mark Vicente: all three were students of Ramtha’s School of Enlightenmentthat was established J.Z. Knight who claims that an entity named Ramtha began channeling through he.
Would you still believe What the Bleep Do We Know?

Well, I have done my research regarding Nassim Haramein after watching his presentation where he claimed that Moses crossed Red Sea with the help of ancient technology. LOL! Mix of pseudo science with Kabbalah.

3/1/2013 04:40:12 pm

I didn't realize that not knowing the exact nature of our relationship to other hominid species with absolute certainty--the obscene statistical significance (p>>99%) for the phylogenetic trees predicted by the theory where we have more complete data sets is for chumps (or is it chimps?)--meant that evolution as a general explanation for the diversification of life is on shaky ground. You should publish this astounding finding for the sake of scientific progress.

3/1/2013 07:09:14 am

Jason - "You can't prove a negative, Jake. All an experiment can prove is that the effect wasn't observed THAT TIME. Repeated tests can show that the effect isn't observed multiple times, and eventually the probability of the effect becomes low. But it will NEVER reach zero because you can never prove something will NEVER happen. There might be a 0.0000000000000001% chance that all the experiments are wrong, but there will always be a chance. Here I must say that it is you, not I, who are exhibiting ignorance of how science and statistics work."

But here you're taking about the future. Testing to see if something will happen. We're talking about the past, to see if something did happen. Did aliens visit Earth? Did Romans come to America? That's what your website is all about, the past. A past event either happened or it didn't happen and that can be proven to an absolute. So actually it isn't me that is mistaken, it is you, again.

3/1/2013 07:16:02 am

But you cannot prove a negative. You won't know that aliens DIDN'T visit until you completely destroy the entire earth and run every piece of dirt through an analyzer looking for traces of alien spaceships. You won't know Romans didn't come until you tear down every building and uproot every tree looking for coins.

And even then, you won't REALLY know because they might have been really neat and left nothing behind as they tiptoed in, cleaned up after themselves, and left again.

The probability of that is vanishingly small, and yet you would not allow us to discount it because it MIGHT be true.

The fact is, you can't prove a negative.

Try.

Name an idea about the past you can prove beyond doubt is false.

3/1/2013 07:11:12 am

Jason - "Name a single fact you accept as proven true (or false) beyond all doubt."

The composition of water is two parts hydrogen, one part oxygen.

3/1/2013 07:20:25 am

Is it really? Can you prove that nowhere in the universe, or in any other hypothetical dimension, a substance with all the properties of water could not be made with a different composition? Surely there is a chance, no matter how small.

Further, are you accepting the scientific definition of hydrogen, based as it is on atomic theory? Or do you want to classify "heavy water" (deuterium oxide) as a different substance since a deuterium atom is only "hydrogen" because atomic theory calls it so?

There is doubt even in facts.

3/1/2013 10:35:07 am

Yes it really is. Water, H2O, is an element. If a similar substance were made with different components it would not be water, it would be something else. Dude, c'mon. You're grasping at straws here man and it's very unbecoming. Heavy water has a different chemical make up than regular water, therefore it is different. The chemical makeup of heavy water is 2H2O. C'mon man, you're struggling to keep arguing with me when this is an issue you've clearly lost. Just concede that you're method is flawed because you disregard theories as false based on their probability of likelihood rather than on evidence.

Furthermore, you wouldn't have to destroy the Earth to prove whether or not aliens have been here in the past. We figured out dinosaurs once roamed the Earth without destroying it. If aliens visited us there will be proof somewhere, some believe there is already proof all around us. Some of their proof is actually dubious, but other things are truly unexplained. They choose to believe those unexplained things are evidence of aliens, you choose to believe they are something else, but there is no hard proof either way. It could also be proven if they decide to come back and tell us they were here before. As far as Romans coming to America, the only proof of that is the Tucson artifacts, the entire theory is based on those artifacts; if they are proven to be a hoax then the Roman theory will essentially be disproven. But things like the Nazca lines and Puma Punku offer circumstantial evidence to the ancient alien theory which has yet to be disproven. If all the evidence AA theorists point to is eventually proven to be something else then AA theory will have been disproven. Until that happens the possibility still remains.

3/1/2013 10:48:12 am

I'm not grasping at straws, Jake; I'm making a serious point. You accept the existence of water as a specific chemical formula, but doing so requires you to accept chemistry as a science, and atoms as real things. But atoms are a theory, one that is probably correct, but could be explained in other ways. (They might, for example, be a virtual reality delusion created by a conspiracy of aliens who have modified strings at the subatomic level to look like atoms. Don't laugh; some people actually believe this, and you are required by your own claims to accept this might be true because you haven't disproved it, even though doing so calls into question whether water--or matter at all--exist as reality in the first place.)

As you discussed about dinosaurs, there is "evidence" for them, but as I explained before, one could claim that the devil fabricated all the dinosaur bones (or perhaps the aliens did). Many people believe this, so you must accept that dinosaurs don't "exist" because the devil theory hasn't been "disproved" to your satisfaction.

You're wrong about the Roman connection. The hypothesis would exist with or without the artifacts. (Indeed, an Ohio man claimed the Romans visited Ohio.) How do you know the Romans didn't sail to South Carolina, visit Myrtle Beach, and go home?

What is your standard for "disproving" a hypothesis? In science, a hypothesis is assumed false (the null hypothesis) until evidence suggests otherwise. In your view, every claim is weighted equally for or against its truth until you are willing to accept someone's science, but based on what? Proof to whose satisfaction? Yours?

3/1/2013 10:45:11 am

Jason - "Name an idea about the past you can prove beyond doubt is false."

The world is flat. This was the general conses of pretty much everyone on Earth until it was proven otherwise.

3/1/2013 10:51:27 am

Nope. Try again. The Flat Earth Society believes the earth is flat and has many arguments for why this is so, mostly involving a conspiracy. Since there are arguments for a flat earth, inclduding reasons why the evidence science accepts is fake, there must therefore be doubt about its roundness.

http://theflatearthsociety.org/cms/

3/1/2013 11:05:34 am

The flat Earth society chooses to ignore the evidence that the Earth is not flat. You can point to them as your example if you want but I'm gonna laugh at you. The has been definitively proven to be not flat. So try again.

Sticker

7/22/2016 08:55:38 am

"Water is an element"?

3/1/2013 10:48:54 am

Jason - "Name an idea about the past you can prove beyond doubt is false."

Life cannot possibly exist as the bottom of the Challenger Deep. This has also been proven false beyond a shadow of a doubt.

3/1/2013 10:53:59 am

Nope. Try again. You'd have to survey ever inch to make sure not a single bacterium--or something we don't even understand--lives there. Otherwise, that's just a theory based on extrapolation from observations.

3/1/2013 11:03:50 am

No I'm saying they found life at the bottom of Challenger Deep, we know it's there. You said name a past notion about the world that was proven false, the notion was that life could not live down there. Today we know life does live down there.

3/1/2013 11:10:56 am

Sorry, I've been up since 5 AM and am getting tired. You were referring to a negative assumption, which isn't a "fact" but a hypothesis.

3/1/2013 11:02:14 am

"Many people believe this, so you must accept that dinosaurs don't "exist" because the devil theory hasn't been "disproved" to your satisfaction."

You've got it twisted here. I don't have to accept that don't dinosaurs exist, I have to accept the possibility that they don't exist, and I do. For all we know nothing that we perceive to be real is actually real, that fits into many well known theories about the universe. And I accept this as possible, even though I think it's highly improbable. The same goes for atomic science, atoms are not theory by the way we know they are real, it is possible that everything we think we know and have proven is only real in that we perceive it to be real and when in fact nothing is actually real. That is a possibility. I accept that as a possible, even though it's highly unlikely and as such I don't necessarily believe in that theory. I don't have to subscribe to a theory for me to allow that it is possible. The lesson here is that you may not agree with AA theory or other such theories but that doesn't mean you can't accept them as possibilities, even if extremely remote.

3/1/2013 11:13:23 am

I don't think you've ever read anything I've written beyond a couple of blog posts. If you read my book, The Cult of Alien Gods, you'll see that I carefully explain that the ancient astronaut hypothesis is possible (indeed, Carl Sagan thought it so), but that I do not believe any of the specific claims made for rise to the level of proof.

3/1/2013 11:22:32 am

Actually I haven't read anything besides the blogs. I came across your page a week ago or so and it's pretty good. Honestly you do fairly good job debunking things when you stick to what is proveable and not proveable. The only thing I have beef with is when you and other debunkers label things as "debunked" based only the notion that they are improbable events. That sort of debunking is nothing more than speculation which is exactly what guys like Wolter are doing on TV. The problem I have with the skeptic society is that they deal too much in absolutes and not enough in possibilities.

3/1/2013 11:38:25 am

I'm not sure anything offered by AA theorist is proof, it is circumstantial evidence that does raise the possibility that AA theory is true.

Tom

3/1/2013 11:59:07 am

So basically - entertain whatever idea or theory you want. Accept everything as possible as it cannot be disproved as impossible. Hypotheses with flimsy evidence should be treated with the same respect as hypotheses with firmer evidence.

What the hell do we know? Is this real? Woah! You did what now to Schrodinger's Cat?
....

3/1/2013 11:18:34 am

"Sorry, I've been up since 5 AM and am getting tired. You were referring to a negative assumption, which isn't a "fact" but a hypothesis."

Yeah I may not have worded that properly originally. But see nothing is a fact until it's proven one way or the other. That's the whole root of what we're talking about here. The idea that the Earth was flat was a generally accepted idea but it was not a fact. The idea that aliens have visited in the past is widely but not generally accepted idea but it is not a fact. Until it proven otherwise it was entirely possible that the world was actually flat. Until proven otherwise certain evidence suggests that it is entirely possible aliens have visited Earth in the past.

3/1/2013 04:49:23 pm

Jake, given your allegiance to hyperagnosticism, how are you so sure the Earth is not flat? What if it's a hologram projected to have the illusion of three-dimensionality with cleverly placed wormholes giving it the illusion of roundness? And how do we know it wasn't the extraplanar reptilian nephilim Nibirutian Knights Templar Elders of Zion Freemason Illuminati Bilderberger Skull & Bones secret society that is behind it all? Or maybe there is no Earth ... whoa.

3/4/2013 09:15:57 pm

@kean

> Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Not only do you repeat your conspiracy points over and over like a crank, pretending innuendo is positive evidence for scientific claims, you have succumbed to this horrible bit of illogic.

Ufologist Kevin Randle describes "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" as "propaganda," explaining, "With that sort of an argument, no rational conclusion can be drawn. It doesn’t matter how much time, effort, or money has been put into an investigation. If you found nothing to support the story, then the fallback position is always, 'Absence of evidence...'”

The late ufologist James Moseley said of this demented logic: "In truth, the absence of evidence after a thorough investigation is a strong clue that what was not found does not exist or did not happen, and common sense says go with that until contrary clues show up." (Shockingly Close to the Truth, p 313)

Nancy Sinclair

4/18/2013 02:07:05 pm

Hey Chris Randolph: Where were the news reporters of war stories when the so called Mormon slaughter at Mt. Meadows took place? Answer is there were none. Therefore, any hate filled idiot such as you or your brother can make up gossip stories about that happening. Your facts are made up falsehoods about all the negatives you are putting on The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and it's members. There is a "Visitors Welcome" sign on all the LDS churches. Try attending these Sunday meetings with an open mind.

4/18/2013 06:06:34 pm

You know you have problems when you intend a question to be rhetorical and the person you aim it at has real answers.

http://mountainmeadows.unl.edu/archive/index.html

Are those enough newspaper accounts for you?

Note especially:

The Mountain Meadow Massacre
Statement of one of the Few Survivors

http://mountainmeadows.unl.edu/archive/mmm.news.dag.18750901.html

She was there, she talked directly to a newspaper. Are you suggesting that anyone traveling near Mormons should expect this sort of thing and bring the press with them just in case..?

Visitors are most unwelcome to Mormon temples:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temple_%28LDS_Church%29

It appears it's one of those multiple tier of trust cults, like Scientology. Anyone can take the "Stress Test"; Xenu comes rather later...

Texas Willow

7/22/2013 07:42:00 am

Thanks for the blog. My sons and I do watch AU regularly - not because we believe everything that is presented in the show and not as entertainment but as a springboard for discussions. It is teaching the kids not to believe everything presented on TV (no matter what the channel) as fact but to look into things for deeper education. We do enjoy that we do learn about some things that do honestly exist in America that we have never heard about (for example, I had never heard of the "American Stonehenge" site) but it doesn't mean we buy into all of the theories.

I do believe it is quite possible that other ancient travelers came to the Americas before the Vikings/Norsemen. It is a rather big continent for explorers to have missed completely. I can easily see that some may have reached here, probably more by accident than to come to inland to mine Lake Michigan islands for cooper, and may never have returned. Others may have reached here and like Columbus, not even realized what they had found. It makes for interesting conversations and speculation. However, the hard evidence is extremely limited. Even if by chance some truly conclusive evidence were to be found, it would take so much more than a TV show to bring people around to acceptance, except for that crowd that is convinced that the mermaid skeleton is being covered up.

People need to learn several lessons from this show. 1-Think for yourselves and educate yourself on a subject. 2-Get a sense of humor about others 3-Don't take it personal. I think your blog helps with these issues in a perfect way.

Steven

9/4/2013 06:05:06 pm

I can't believe that all of you missed the following:
1) Clearly, if you look at the evidence you'll discover that Jesus was actually Scottish.
2) Jesus never rode a donkey he rode a Unicorn.
3) The disappearance of Unicorns and Jesus is conspiracy created by the Priory of Zion.
4) The Chinese who occupied the east coast of North America brought with them fire breathing dragons who are the mortal enemies of Unicorns. A great battle ensued and after all but one dragon and Unicorn were killed they buried the hatchet (someplace on the high plains of Peru) and boarded their rocketship and went to their homes back on Betelgeuse and Bellatrix to put an end to the war that they've fought for millennium and usher in a new period of peace and prosperity.

Hoyt link

11/17/2013 11:23:07 am

" ... And would they have used unicorns to find them?"
Of course they did. Why hasn't this been researched before? Since unicorn flatulence contains sprinkles, we should look for sprinkles in America as proof of their existence. Many sprinkles can be found today in Las Vegas and Los Angeles, cities with mysteriously similar names. That's absolute proof AND evidence of a related conspiracy; case closed, episode complete.

JJLouis

11/28/2013 02:07:53 pm

If this ever gets turned into an actual film (which it should), I want to play the crazy-haired guy who jumps to outrageous conclusions and states as matters of fact things like, "Well, it's obviously because Big Foot is not from this planet, but is in actuality an ancient alien ninja."

11/30/2013 05:43:01 am

So you want to play Giorgio Tsoukalos?

Good luck with the hair

11/30/2013 05:43:16 am

11/30/2013 05:43:36 am

So you want to play Giorgio Tsoukalos?

Good luck with the hair!

11/30/2013 10:44:50 am

Yes! I couldn't remember his name. That hair is definitely not from this planet.

Jason D.

11/30/2013 11:48:04 am

Can't wait to see tonight's premiere. Here's my take at an unaired (unairable) episode of AU.

After pissing off a local teen, Scott finds a phallic symbol carved on his jeep. Does this mean today's Scottish Rite Freemasons are trying to silence him with symbols of the 'throbbing masculine'?

"Notice the two orbs at the bottom of the shaft" Scott exclaims "As a geologist, I know my stones." Scott then goes on a quest to find other instances of the 'throbbing masculine', leading to him busting into a college dorm room while a poor young man is 'worshiping' his 'throbbing masculine. "We had to run to avoid the authorities, I've run into this several times where the government and universities try to keep me from the truth. Still I did get pictures, clearly this man is a modern day Knight Templar, celebrating the fact that they came here before Columbus."

Scott then goes to see the local expert “I brought these pictures and asked an archeologist friend what he saw”

“Scott you’ve really outdone yourself here”

“I know, look here at these veins on his ‘throbbing masculine’, I’ve seen that symbol before! It’s the hooked X!.”

“I think you’ll find that’s just a normal c**k”

“You would say that, the establishment never wants to acknowledge the hidden history of this country, I mean, poultry doesn’t even make sense in this case, look at the trail of hair that leads directly to and surrounds the ‘throbbing masculine’.”

“You need to get laid Scott”

12/1/2013 05:25:36 am

I realize that I'm a bit late to this blog party but I have a simple, straight-forward question for people like Kent.

Why is it that you quote crackpot theorists as if their "work" is gospel and ignore the science put forth by people with acclaim and accreditation?

Please refrain from citing conspiracies, suppression, or the fact that you read a book. What's the real nuts-and-bolts basis for disregarding accepted theory (including folks like myself who aren't part of the establishment) and pushing fairy tale notions?

You wouldn't be trying to make a living off people who may actually have a greater intelligence deficit than you, would you? Nor could you be taking advantage of the programming chasm (dare I say black hole?) created by the advent of cable television?

Give me irrefutable proof of anything you claim. No assumptions. No excuses. No opinions. Just real, hard, truth.

12/1/2013 05:25:56 am

12/5/2013 06:18:53 am

When I read that someone read something in a book that spouts these bizarre theories I'm reminded of a Benny Hill song|:
"I read the most interesting article,
most interesting I've ever seen,
that tells the difference between a girl who's fat,
and a girl who's lean,
When both girls they smoke a cigarette
it's one of life's natural laws
that the fat girl will finish the cigarette first
'cause she takes bigger draws

I know its true
I know it's right
it's in the papers
in black and white"

Andy

12/5/2013 01:35:02 am

I'm late to this party also. I just stumbled onto this blog the other day and have skimmed my way through a couple of Jason's reviews and some of the comments that follow. Why not throw my two cents in?

I've been doing archaeology (as a student and professional) in eastern North America for about 20 years. At the beginning of my career, I was fairly knowledgeable about a lot of this ancient astronaut/pre-Columbian visitors to the New World stuff. My sense is that the purveyors of these ideas have proliferated in recent years, perhaps (as someone on here already said) encouraged by the general "any idea is as good as any other" attitude that has emerged as part of our nation's general war on expertise. I do not have the time or energy to pick apart the nonsense assertions like Jason does, so I'm glad he does it. He's doing us a service.

It seems like maybe there is a lack of understanding about how the peer review process works. There is no "peer review committee." A journal editor sends a submitted paper out to professionals who can weigh in on the paper and make a recommendation as to its suitability for publication in the particular journal to which it was submitted. Reviewers may point out issues with logic, writing style, paper structure, evidence, literature cited, etc. The editor then typically makes a decision on whether to accept the paper, return it to the author for revision (a very common outcome), or reject it outright. If a submitted paper obviously doesn't meet the standards of the journal, it can be rejected without review.

I'm sure where in this process the great conspiracy to hide the truth is operationalized. I've published peer reviewed papers, and I've served as a peer reviewer for major journals. To the comment "show me the diffusion papers that have been published," I would respond "show me the manuscripts that were submitted along with the reasons why they were rejected, then we'll talk."

Two decades of primary fieldwork and collections work on prehistoric sites in eastern North America has revealed to me NOT ONE "anomalous" artifact that would in any way support the idea that all these different non-Native American peoples were criss-crossing the continent before Columbus doing whatever it is they were allegedly doing. How can these incursions have been so vast, so frequent, and so consequential . . . and yet left so few traces? What exactly is supposed to have been "diffusing"? The power of invisibility? If North American prehistory was so dramatically affected by all this foot traffic, why can we look back through time (using actual archaeological evidence) and see long sequences of in situ development and change that are consistent with multiple lines of evidence? Archaeology is a science that works by building and using theory (not theory as in "a guess" but theory as in "a set of principles and assumptions for the systematic investigation of a set of phenomena") to generate and evaluate ideas about the past that have a good probability of being accurate. Making assertions based on myths, legends, and hoaxes is not science. In the same vein, simply making an assertion that something is science does not make it science. That is true even if you make the same assertion many many times.

12/5/2013 01:38:00 am

The beginning of the fourth paragraph should have been "I'm not sure where in this process . . . "

Bob

2/13/2014 03:05:49 pm

The problem with your factual progression is that Scott Wolter has since conclusively proved that the Ark of the Covenant is not in Ethiopia, but rather was brought by the Lost Tribes of Israel through Ohio (where they built mounds in the shape of a Hanukah menorah) to the Grand Canyon. It is now in a nearly (but not entirely)inaccessible cave in the canyon wall, but the National Park Service will not let Scott or anyone else near it, which is further proof that it is in fact there! So it could well be that the Jews brought unicorns to America to protect the Ark, and the last unicorns are now residing in the cave, at least that is what many forensic geologists and dissenting historians believe.

2/14/2014 01:34:25 am

Ahhh! That explains the "Great Inverted Dreidel of Cleveland" which the Illuminati converted to the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame to hide it's true purpose!

Rush link

3/4/2014 07:10:52 pm

Just a quick note on the means to defeat skepticism.

Teach them to connect the dots. All ancient cultures used the "connect the dots" approach to learning.

The old discussion (2/2013) on unicorns caught me. I have just unraveled the Origins of the Freemasons and their evolution from the Knights Templar from the Mithrasians from the Gnostics from the Romans from the Hebrews and from the Egyptians and from the Mesopotamians and from an outlier groupe called Gaelic. The Callanish Standing Stones Gateway tells the same story as Genesis and the Gospels, and in particular, John's Revelation. It is John's Revelation that ties all the cosmologies together. (a Revelation, duh!) Look for returntopatmos.com/Solomons_Temples.pdf for an on going work.

Here is the secret that will completely unwind the mystery of all the religious cultures of human experience.

The royal emblems with a lion and a unicorn.have a crown between these beasts. However, in cosmic reality what is between the two beasts is a crab and a manger. This is the manger that represents the post birth resting place of every Son of God since it was first drawn in the Hall of Bulls at Lascaux, France over 17,000 years ago. The Manger Scene in Lascaux was created at least 18,000 years after the first bullroarer was fabricated using the Seven Stars of John's Revelation.. At Lascau the manger is shown as the "place where the cows come home." Lascaux was a birth house, after all! Where were the "Magdalenians" (!) going to put all the babies born in the Virgin's mountain?

After leaving the manger the Sons of God acquire cognition. This occurs where two men ride the unicorn. Thus, the Templars were helping the Son of God pass through the solstice of the Templars; Gemini over Unicornus (1 AD to 2000 AD). The solstice left the Templars on 9/11/2001, right on scedule..

Now, if you go to Callanish (Google Map It) there you will see the way of the Wise Men that come from the East. All wise men come from the East, none have ever come from the west. Follow the dots and you will know why. Wisdom is not what you kown (west). Wisdom is what you see coming.

In the meantime Jason, thanks for your skepticism. I have discovered that skeptics are full of it; It is wisdom they cannot understand because they cannot connect the dots. Believers have very little useful knowledge because they do not perceive a need for it, wisdom, given that a Savior will solve all their problems if they simply believe. And, though we have left the solstice of the Templars, we still have a century or more before the 1st of Aries leaves the Vernal Equinox. Unravel that mystery, and you will know why Easter comes when Lunacy is setting and Solarity is rising as the Rising Sun is nailed to te solsticial cross as the 1st of Aries, the Sacrificial Lamb.. The the Goddess of Prescience, as in pre-science, will touch the Lord of the Rising and the Grand Avenue of Callanish that created the District of Columbia will be open wide fo Skeptics and Beievers, alike. But, first, America does need to get off the Unicorn and fetch a Cup of Water and Toast those Geminians called Templars..

Bmiller

3/31/2015 04:34:52 am

What? This isn't a real episode? Once we got to the Templar/Indo-European Warrior Elite connection (identity?), I was certain that we were on the right track. We just need some hard evidence...

Sarah Kate

8/9/2015 03:33:22 pm

This is my favourite post yet! Except I think you've explained how you reached your conclusions a little too well... delete a few paragraphs so you have more extraordinary (and inexplicable) leaps of logic, and you'll have nailed it!

CaptainMommy

10/17/2015 11:22:05 am

You have missed the Unicorn herd that runs rampant through New Braunfels, Texas. We have even claimed them as our high school mascot (our football team hasn't been very good this year; is it because of a Masonic curse?)

Your comment will be posted after it is approved.

Inventing a "Lost" Episode of America Unearthed: "Unicorns in America"

AMERICA UNHINGED: Unicorns in America?

Leave a Reply.

Author

Newsletters

Categories

Terms & Conditions

Archives