If you haven’t been keeping up with my conversation with Scott Wolter over on Wolter’s blog, please be sure to check it out. It has been an enlightening experience. So far, Wolter has revealed that up until I corrected him on it, he thought I was an ancient astronaut theorist. He has also announced that his program last week on whether the Chinese built the East Bay Walls near San Francisco wasn’t intended to suggest that the Chinese built the East Bay Walls. He further feels that I have hijacked the web traffic meant for his show through the nefarious plot of providing content related to the topics addressed on his show: Your mastery of the Internet has created a following for sure, but like a lot of miss-guided [sic] ventures, be careful what you wish for. Your attempts to undermine me personally have only hardened my resolve. Wolter, after failing to recognize that I was explaining the literal meaning of the roots of the word incredible, also chose to address an issue that I have dutifully avoided: Is this the best you have to bring; "They are not to be believed?" You sound like priest proselytizing to the faithful. For a guy who has questioned my integrity, allowed idiots on his blog to call me things like a "pseudoscientist," a "fraud" and "racist," and then to "threaten to expose" a 25 year-old lawsuit over a $1,500 agate I was ordered to give back to a guy who then wouldn't take it, you'd think you bring a little better game than this? Is this how you think history is to be decided? By trying to attack my credibility is that how you think you can win? Wolter has chosen to make this a subject of public interest by misstating the facts of the lawsuit, which, since he is a public figure discussing them in a public forum, he has now freed me to talk about. In fact, he all but requires me to talk about it to explain why Wolter is misrepresenting me as threatening him when I was in fact trying very hard to avoid damaging his reputation as a geologist. I am attaching a copy of the relevant documents at the end of this post, but the long and short of it is that a judge, in the case of Petersen v. Wolter (1989), found that in 1988 Scott Wolter misrepresented a chunk of Brazilian agate worth $32.00 as a piece of Lake Superior agate worth $2,500.00 and used that chunk of rock to obtain from the plaintiff a piece of genuine Lake Superior agate in trade. The judge ruled that as “a known and recognized expert on Lake Superior agates” Wolter “knew, or with the exercise of reasonable care or competence, should have known, that said representations were false, or said representations were made by the defendant [Wolter] to the plaintiff [Petersen] without knowing whether they were true or false.” The ruling did not, as Wolter states, require the return of the valuable agate, which according to court records Wolter had already sold. It required Wolter to return a second agate, a chunk of less valuable Brazilian slab agate traded along with the Lake Superior agate, and entered a judgment of “the sum of $2,000.00” to compensate Petersen for the Lake Superior agate, according to court records. I trust you can see why I thought it damaging to a geologist who likes to use court proceedings as the standard of evidence for judging his claims that a court ruled that he misrepresented or was ignorant about a geological specimen, and therefore why I didn’t report on this until Wolter himself chose to talk about the facts of the case, even though, by his own standards, this information is highly relevant. As I have written in the past, I struggled with how to handle this material. However, since Wolter has chosen to discuss selectively parts of the lawsuit to imply that I am seeking to harm him, it is important that this information be available for all to read. Before we finish, I’d like to point readers to a new book by the Dutch scholar of ancient history Jan N. Bremmer. The volume, Initiation into the Mysteries of the Ancient World, was recently published by De Gruyter, who are giving it away for free. I have not read the entirety of the book yet, but I want to highlight a couple of interesting observations for their relevance to the topics we discuss here. In an appendix on the source for Virgil’s underworld in Book Six of the Aeneid, Bremmer makes the claim that Virgil used passages from 1 Enoch as a template for Aeneas’ passage into Hades. Specifically, he argues that the Sibyl guiding Aeneas through Hades is modeled on the angel guiding Enoch through the heavens, with both sharing the motif of asking questions about various figures encountered. If true, this would imply a much wider distribution of 1 Enoch and its attendant mythology of Fallen Angels across the ancient world, and would also support claims, also by Bremmer, in the book The Watchers in Jewish and Christian Tradition earlier this year, in the opposite direction that cross-fertilization with Hellenistic mythology helped shape Enoch’s vision of the Fallen Angels. What is beyond doubt, however, is that Virgil used Apollonius of Rhodes’s Argonautica as a model in the Aeneid. The love of Aeneas and Dido is closely modeled on that of Jason and Medea, for example. My book, Jason and the Argonauts through the Ages, argued that the Argonauts’ voyage was originally a descent into the underworld (a katabasis), particularly the ancient conception of the underworld shared across the ancient Near East that it was the nighttime home of the sun. Damien Nelis made a similar case that Virgil understood Apollonius’ version of the Argonautica as a symbolic descent into the underworld and therefore modeled the Golden Bough on the Golden Fleece. However, historically most Classical scholars have rejected this interpretation, for reasons I discuss in my book. It’s good to see that Bremmer has come down on my side of the argument, or something close to it, as he states in explaining how Virgil used elements of the Argonautica: The expedition of Jason and his Argonauts also was a kind of quest, in which the Golden Fleece and the Golden Bough are clearly comparable. In addition, Colchis was situated at the edge of Greek civilisation so that the journey to it might not have been a katabasis but certainly had something of a Jenseitsfahrt [i.e., an otherworldly journey]. This partial agreement makes me feel a little better about disagreeing with him on the origins of the Golden Fleece.
320 Comments
Scott Hamilton
12/27/2014 03:52:53 am
You've got to love the ego on Wolter. Oh no, his resolve is hardened! What will we ever do in the face of a person who spreads misinformation with a hardened resolve! That's never happened before!
Reply
Jason D.
12/28/2014 08:38:42 am
Wolter used 'Harden' it was super obstructive.
Reply
Americanegro
8/22/2016 07:56:05 pm
That can happen in a situation in which the provenance of the stone is murky … ("Oh, yes … My Grandpa found this stone thirty years ago …")
Reply
Clint Knapp
12/27/2014 04:05:52 am
I wonder; is it possible that Wolter refers to yet another case altogether? I can see forgetting some of the details of a 25 year old lawsuit, but getting them completely wrong? There's a pretty big difference between a guy not taking a rock back and a guy not being able to get the rock back because it was sold.
Reply
EP
12/27/2014 07:25:57 am
Nah, it's the same case. Now Scott Wolter is also accusing his victim and the winner in this case of defrauding him.
Reply
Clete
12/27/2014 04:08:08 am
I read the posts in answer to the questions raised by you and others on Scott Wolters web site. He refuses to answer the questions except by the arrogant reply of basically "I know more than you do". I are a "forensic geologist" but I can't read the dates on a map or even evaulate evidence from orginal, reliable sources.
Reply
Dan
12/27/2014 04:50:57 am
Wolter's tired approach to skepticism is as predictable as it childish. His claim that on the Chinese maps "the level of detail and accuracy is incredible" is quickly debunked by various people noting that the portions of the map that should be detailed by the Chinese (SF area, etc) are not, and that the only detailed portions relate to areas discovered by the Spanish. Wolter's response is to pivot and claim that the fact-checkers are "nitpicking".
Reply
EP
12/27/2014 05:04:59 am
Jason, you make me so happy sometimes! :D
Reply
Mar
12/28/2014 08:17:39 am
Bingo !
Reply
EP
12/27/2014 05:26:20 am
Scott Wolter's latest comments on Jason:
Reply
Kal
12/27/2014 05:33:43 am
Didn't take long for SW to go off his OCD meds and think you were against him. Not sure if he's on meds, but he sure sounds like he should be. The fact that he's 'hardened' is also disturbingly funny.
Reply
EP
12/27/2014 06:30:08 am
"Not sure if he's on meds, but he sure sounds like he should be."
Reply
Snarky
12/27/2014 12:31:01 pm
Be careful about opining on SW's mental condition. He could sue you for that.
Reply
tagbs
1/4/2015 08:47:00 am
I'm still trying to figure out why he thinks the East Bay Walls look just like the Great Wall of China. On seeing the segment I immediately thought of the typical stone walls in the Northeast used by early settlers as boundry lines or to control thier herds. Maybe Scott needs to spend more time roaming the fields and woods of the USA northeast instead of the crumbling parts of China's wall
Reply
Mike Morgan
12/27/2014 06:50:46 am
In his blog, "Scott Wolter Answers", in his September 14, 2014 post titled ""So what about that “Apparently Non-Existent” Honorary Master’s Degree?"", SW expressed his concern that the discussion about his Coffee Cup Masters Degree would "...put my now elderly retired professors in an awkward position at being questioned about their kind gesture so many years ago."
Reply
Dan
12/27/2014 06:50:49 am
I'm pretty sure Wolter is moderating comments in that topic.
Reply
Rick
12/27/2014 07:11:56 am
I have tried to post several things recently with no luck either. But I asked him a very simple question a month ago with no problem. So I agree.
Reply
12/27/2014 12:42:34 pm
He has also declined to approve my response to his latest post (the one about me living in a basement).
Rick
12/27/2014 01:27:24 pm
I was kinda disappointed because my questions were pretty pointed but I thought relevant. Like when he mentioned the new techniques of ultra violet light analysis, but said he "hoped the skeptics allow us to do so..." I asked him how in any circumstance could a skeptic keep him from doing analysis in his own lab? And then publishing the results for peer review.
Only Me
12/28/2014 04:20:50 am
Well, I'll let Scott explain the situation himself (taken from his reply to an *approved* comment):
EP
12/28/2014 04:27:49 am
Jason's "arguments would be more effective if he had even a hint of humility and acknowledge when a valid point was made", eh?
Bryant Lister
12/28/2014 06:23:32 am
Scott has repeatedly taunted me about not posting on his personal blog site. I have declined to go there because he would be completely in control of the content that is displayed. Good to know that my reasoning was sound. I expect that from someone with Wolter's ego and desire for his followers to see him as something he is not.
Reply
EP
12/28/2014 06:26:55 am
Do you mind me asking how it came about that Scott Wolter was repeatedly taunting you about not posting on his site? 12/28/2014 06:57:11 am
Wolter banned me from his site today for "personal attacks."
EP
12/28/2014 06:58:50 am
Wait, who's Bryant Lister, then? I'm confused.
Only Me
12/28/2014 07:08:12 am
He's the guy who wrote an unfavorable review of Scott's book /Akhenaten to the Founding Fathers/. The exchange on Amazon.com was priceless.
EP
12/28/2014 07:15:43 am
How on Earth did I miss THAT?!?!
EP
12/28/2014 07:28:24 am
Scott Wolter: "You're mind is so closed you wouldn't know what the Holy Grail was if She bit you in the rear end."
Rick
12/28/2014 02:01:53 pm
I just read every single comment in Dr. Lister's comment thread for his review at Amazon. Holy shit! 131 posts. If I was on a computer and not in ipad I would cut and paste all the name calling SW did. Dr. Lister pretty much slammed SW over and over again. By the end of it they were trying to do character attacks which Dr. Lister explains away extremely well.
Jerky
12/29/2014 03:59:23 am
http://www.amazon.com/review/R2WH9VUHD8VDFY/ref=cm_cd_pg_pg12?ie=UTF8&asin=B00F8OIDOI&cdForum=Fx1M8POE15YTCJ5&cdPage=12&cdThread=TxIH5HAO6TWGL0&store=digital-text#wasThisHelpful
EP
12/29/2014 04:03:11 am
Yep
Jerky
12/29/2014 04:12:43 am
wow... Just wow....
Rick
12/29/2014 11:52:04 am
I've never seen a published author engage in the bickering he does. What would his Amazon reviews look like without his replies?
Only Me
12/30/2014 05:48:38 pm
Scott Wolter December 30, 2014 at 6:58 PM
EP
12/31/2014 02:25:17 am
Amazon Stalker... Master of the Internet... Scott Wolter must live in a shitty cyberpunk novel...
Bryant Lister
1/2/2015 01:27:39 am
EP, I emailed Wolter almost a year ago after I sat through a few episodes of America Unearthed (my girlfriend was watching it). The lack of scientific method, wild claims and made up nonsense was insulting. So, I sent Wolter and email telling him so. After exchanging a few dozen emails with Wolter, discussing his show and claims about the Kensington Runestone, I became convinced that this geologist was toxic to science and reason. So, I did more research on his books and claims...which led me to posting reviews of his work on Amazon. During our email exchanges and commenting on Amazon, Wolter repeatedly said I should 'man up' and come to his blog and post there. He's continued this taunt for almost a year now, even though I've explained to him that I have no desire to post on his personal blog where he controls the content. The Amazon.com comments have become a source of comedic relief for me, seeing Wolter and his cult followers launch into personal attacks on me over and over again.
RLewis
12/27/2014 07:04:13 am
So I guess now you're banned. Merry Christmas
Reply
EP
12/27/2014 07:08:19 am
By the way, Scott Wolter's sister is a total GILF:
Reply
Rick
12/27/2014 07:08:52 am
SW seems like a person who doesn't really take effort to document what he says or thinks. I say this because much of his arguments seem to vary in details or thoughts which seem small but when put together into a document, appear unorganized.
Reply
EP
12/27/2014 07:16:47 am
Wolter, not knowing when to quit, Part n:
Reply
12/27/2014 09:13:14 am
How confusing! We are supposed to accept the rules of evidence for a court of law when it comes to Wolter's evidence for fringe history, but when the evidence is about an event directly involving him, the judge was too "confused" to rule right?
Reply
EP
12/27/2014 09:35:04 am
In his own mind, Scott Wolter is always right. He is the judge, the jury and the executioner of the skeptics, the academic conspiracy, and the... Vatican, I guess?
Rev. Phil Gotsch
12/27/2014 07:24:34 am
Oh, wow …
Reply
EP
12/27/2014 07:28:20 am
Rev., are you the "third party" referenced in the judgment of Peterson v. Wolter?
Reply
Rev. Phil Gotsch
12/27/2014 07:42:51 am
LOL … No …
EP
12/27/2014 07:46:47 am
Why don't you tell us again about how Scott Wolter is "not an essentially dishonest person"? That one always warms my heart.
Matt Mc
12/27/2014 11:21:52 am
So what you are saying Phil is that if Wolter's buyer was smart he would of noticed right away that Wolter's stone was not what was advertised. Then he would of never bought the stone, discovered the fraud, and the sued Wolter.
EP
12/27/2014 11:33:06 am
Not to mention mishandling the Kensington Rune Stone to the point where it is now incapable of yeilding dating evidence.
Matt Mc
12/27/2014 11:55:39 am
I did not see any reason to mention that just like I did not feel the need to mention Nazi Speeches or crazy Holy Bloodline friends who according to his own family members is not the correct bloodline.
Clint Knapp
12/27/2014 05:25:37 pm
Phil, you should be aware that when you say you were involved in a court case as a witness against "a certain individual" in a thread about a specific court case between Scott Wolter and Albert Peterson, you make it sound as though that individual was one of the two men involved in this case. Otherwise, why not say "another individual"?
Rev. Phil Gotsch
12/28/2014 05:39:44 am
"Clint" --
EP
12/28/2014 05:46:52 am
Too bad. You've been practicing on this blog for so long and it has gone to waste so far...
Rev. Phil Gotsch
12/29/2014 06:01:38 am
"EP" --
EP
12/29/2014 06:24:10 am
Everyone realizes the last point, Sherlock.
Rev. Phil Gotsch
12/29/2014 10:00:58 am
I do not believe that Scott Wolter knowing perpetrated a fraud, for the reasons I have already stated ...
EP
12/29/2014 10:07:42 am
Did you actually read the judgment?
Rev. Phil Gotsch
12/29/2014 10:18:34 am
"EP" --
EP
12/29/2014 10:20:59 am
But did you read the judgment? You know, the pdf file linked at the bottom of this blog post.
Rev. Phil Gotsch
12/29/2014 10:31:14 am
Does the court record include transcripts or letters or other documents demonstrating that Scott Wolter KNEW that it was a "Brazil" agate, i.e., that he was intentionally perpetrating a fraud … ???
J.A Dickey
12/29/2014 10:37:20 am
I assumed its easier to make a big mistake with diamonds
Rev. Phil Gotsch
12/29/2014 10:52:07 am
"J. A. Dickey" --
EP
12/29/2014 10:57:29 am
"(hint: no) ..."
J.A Dickey
12/29/2014 10:58:58 am
i stand corrected. thanks! with my luck were i to trade
Rev. Phil Gotsch
12/29/2014 11:08:05 am
"J. A. Dickey" --
Only Me
12/29/2014 03:38:03 pm
Phil, you believe "That whole tangled deal-gone-wrong and subsequent lawsuit was nothing but a mixed-up mistake and misunderstanding". That's fine by me. Neither of us was involved, and I can only go by the judge's ruling.
Rev. Phil Gotsch
12/29/2014 03:57:11 pm
"Only Me" --
Only Me
12/29/2014 04:13:16 pm
No, thank you. That seems to be a sore subject, and like I said, I can only go by the judgment.
Scott Hamilton
12/27/2014 07:49:18 am
I'm just going to assume that all those elipses are representing the phrase, "but Scott Wolter saw the opportunity to make some money he didn't earn, and is really embarrassed he got caught."
Reply
Rev. Phil Gotsch
12/27/2014 07:56:32 am
LOL …
Reply
EP
12/27/2014 08:03:42 am
I have known Rev. Phil Gotsch for 25+ years as both a personal friend and a professional colleague...
Reply
Only Me
12/27/2014 08:25:21 am
Phil, would it be safe to assume that the cases where Brazilian agate *can* be mistaken for Lake Superior agate involved small samples? I mean, according to the court files, the two agates involved were (rounding up) 15 and 17 lbs., respectively.
Reply
Rev. Phil Gotsch
12/27/2014 05:16:02 pm
"Only Me" --
Reply
Only Me
12/27/2014 06:02:37 pm
That's cool. I'm just curious as to how easy or often it is to mistake one for the other and if overall size makes a difference.
Rev. Phil Gotsch
12/28/2014 05:31:54 am
"Only Me" --
EP
12/28/2014 05:48:16 am
That's not what the judge thought after considering all the evidence presented by both sides. The judge thought Scott Wolter was deliberately dishonest and/or blatantly incompetent.
Rev. Phil Gotsch
12/28/2014 06:14:00 am
"EP" --
EP
12/28/2014 06:25:39 am
But he had two parties experienced in these matters explain it to him, right? I mean, Scott Wolter wrote a book about agates and he was defending himself, right?
Rev. Phil Gotsch
12/28/2014 07:08:35 am
"EP" --
EP
12/28/2014 07:11:26 am
In Rev. Phil Gotsch's eyes, Scott Wolter still can do no wrong.
Matt Mc
12/28/2014 07:16:40 am
The judge does not have to be an expert on the stone, he however is an expert on the law, which in this case was determined that Scott broke.
.
12/28/2014 10:25:44 am
i admit i said "zoo" and "red pencil" in a post.
Jason D.
12/28/2014 11:12:51 am
""EP" --
Rev. Phil Gotsch
12/28/2014 01:57:57 pm
"Jason D" --
EP
12/28/2014 02:11:17 pm
We also don't know a Nazi rally from a Nazi lecture...
Matt Mc
12/28/2014 02:30:26 pm
And it appears Scott Wolter did not either (at least at the time of the sale) or he knowingly sold a fraud.
Rev. Phil Gotsch
12/28/2014 02:39:15 pm
Every decision by a judge or a jury is supposed to be predicated upon both the law and the facts of the case … Sometimes the decision is later found upon appeal to have been made in error …
Matt Mc
12/28/2014 02:50:00 pm
I am not asking for your opinion others might, but I know I would not. I know you enjoy stones but I do not trust your ability to tell the truth. You have demonstrated on this blog that you are a good parrot, that you can evade questions with your parroting, that you find lies and half truths okay when they are for entertainments sake, and you like to make comments about people ethnic backgrounds and find Nazi speeches as things of curiosity (even more sadly it was during the time of the civil rights movement). So I have no idea why anyone would find your opinion on anything worth any merit.
EP
12/28/2014 02:50:05 pm
Did you read the judgment, Rev?
Rev. Phil Gotsch
12/28/2014 03:10:20 pm
The way these things go*down in the real world is that a calculation is made as to whether an appeal is worth the $$$ and hassles involved …
Matt Mc
12/28/2014 03:23:44 pm
are you suggesting that the judgement was wrong?
Joe D.
12/29/2014 01:20:06 am
So Phil,
Rev. Phil Gotsch
12/29/2014 02:28:23 am
Given my own experience and knowledge, I believe that the judge's decision was made in error ...
Matt Mc
12/29/2014 02:42:22 am
But you are not a judge nor or you qualified to be one.
EP
12/29/2014 02:48:55 am
Which part of it is erroneous, Rev? Could you name the numbered points in the judgment with which you disagree?
Rev. Phil Gotsch
12/29/2014 02:54:29 am
Again … Based upon my own experience and knowledge, I know that it is possible to misidentify a "Brazil" agate as a Lake Superior agate … It happens, usually innocently … It just does …
EP
12/29/2014 02:56:04 am
Let me repeat my question: Which part of it is erroneous, Rev? Could you name the numbered points in the judgment with which you disagree?
Matt Mc
12/29/2014 03:00:34 am
It lot like Wolter does not have a track record of stating that fake stone and artifacts are genuine in order to gain profit. His whole secondary career is based off that premise.
Rev. Phil Gotsch
12/29/2014 03:33:30 am
You buys crack me up … Your extraordinary irrational hatred of Scott Wolter … is simply breath-taking …
Rev. Phil Gotsch
12/29/2014 03:37:11 am
"guys"
EP
12/29/2014 03:38:28 am
As opposed you your ordinary, rational love of Scott Wolter? :)
Matt Mc
12/29/2014 03:40:58 am
I do not hate Wolter at all, I do dislike people that knowingly lie to the general public to make money. Wolter as a public figure is no different than the snake oil salesman of a hundred years ago.
EP
12/29/2014 03:49:01 am
So... for the third time: Which part of the judge's findings is erroneous, Rev? Could you name the numbered points in the judgment with which you disagree?
Joe D.
12/29/2014 04:18:12 am
Since you think the judgement was incorrect do you believe that Wolter was wronged by Peterson as he stated in his response? Also what faults do you find in Jason's actual review of Scott's work?
Rev. Phil Gotsch
12/29/2014 04:42:43 am
LOL …
EP
12/29/2014 04:49:32 am
So we must either ignore all the evidence presented over the years on this blog and elsewhere, or we must conclude that Rev. Phil Gotsch is a terrible judge of character.
Joe D.
12/29/2014 04:59:42 am
I do not think you actually read my question. I asked if you think wolter was wronged by Peterson as wolter claims in his own comments? Also I did not say anything wrong about scott as a person or the quality of his show. I asked where you find errors in Jason's review of Scott's work, including his show, books, or other media appearances?
Rev. Phil Gotsch
12/29/2014 05:15:21 am
"Joe D" --
EP
12/29/2014 05:18:32 am
You said that the judge's findings are mistaken. You're contradicting yourself.
Rev. Phil Gotsch
12/29/2014 07:30:42 am
"EP" --
Joe D.
12/29/2014 09:03:56 am
Phil,
Jason D.
12/29/2014 09:05:07 am
"Again, I have seen multiple thousands upon thousands of specimens over the decades … It is possible, it can happen, it has happened that a "Brazil" agate may be misidentified -- innocently -- as a much more expensive Lake Superior agate, for several reasons which I have already explained (above) … And again, clear provenance is not always at hand and often can be murky at best … "Oh, yes … My
Rev. Phil Gotsch
12/29/2014 10:07:05 am
"Jason D" --
EP
12/29/2014 10:10:04 am
How nice it must be to look at words and see what one wants to see, instead of what is written...
Rev. Phil Gotsch
12/29/2014 10:25:06 am
"EP" --
EP
12/29/2014 10:38:16 am
You've known Scott Wolter for decades and you still defend him
Joe D.
12/29/2014 11:00:46 am
what about the judges decision do you not agree with? Do you believe that Scott did not misidentify the agate in question (intentional or by accident)? Or do you think Mr Peterson misrepresented the events and transaction?
Rev. Phil Gotsch
12/29/2014 11:02:04 am
"EP" --
EP
12/29/2014 11:23:00 am
When did I ask you to agree with me? I asked you some questions, which you stil haven't answered. (And whenever people point it out, you compare them to Spanish Inquisition or say you're being waterboarded, or something equally inappropriate.)
Rev. Phil Gotsch
12/29/2014 11:30:42 am
"EP" --
EP
12/29/2014 11:57:42 am
I don't even know whether you've read the judgment. How am I supposed to know about how much of what you said we can agree?
Joe D.
12/29/2014 12:45:12 pm
I hate to be a broken record, but you stated that you disagreed with the judge. Now based on the record it seems a pretty straight forward case so I specifically ask for a third time. Again I am not trying to attack Wolter or you but since you stated your thoughts on the judgment.
Rev. Phil Gotsch
12/29/2014 01:27:10 pm
"EP" and "Joe D" --
Jason D.
12/29/2014 01:27:28 pm
""Jason D" --
EP
12/29/2014 01:36:08 pm
What can I say? Blessed are the self-deluded, for theirs is peace of mind.
Joe D.
12/29/2014 02:25:26 pm
Phil,
Clint Knapp
12/29/2014 03:15:14 pm
More than that, Wolter misrepresented the outcome of the lawsuit itself on his own blog, just days ago, when he stated it was a $1,500 agate he tried to give back.
tm
12/29/2014 03:15:31 pm
"… We have worked together on a number of scientific educational projects … I know him to be an honest person of good character …"
Jerky
12/29/2014 03:18:26 pm
Allow me to jump in here.
EP
12/29/2014 03:25:51 pm
"Three words: long range locator"
Rev. Phil Gotsch
12/29/2014 03:51:04 pm
Okay … At the risk of being repetitive, I'll repeat myself … again ...
Joe D.
12/30/2014 01:20:37 am
So again, you have stated multiple times you feel that the judge was in error on this. But where was he on error? I am not saying that Wolter did it intentionally, I have no idea if Wolter knew it was a Brazilian agate or did not. But based on the information provided by the documents Wolter was ordered to compensate for the value of the agate. So just because you do not like the results of the case does not mean that the Judge was incorrect.
Rev. Phil Gotsch
12/30/2014 01:47:12 am
"Joe D" --
EP
12/30/2014 02:02:10 am
"This case from the past is NOT being presented and hashed in the blog out of even-handed curiosity, a desire to learn something interesting, or any such thing … It is here because and only because it is being brandished as a weapon in the War on Scott Wolter …"
Rev. Phil Gotsch
12/30/2014 02:13:37 am
"EP" --
EP
12/30/2014 02:22:50 am
Boy, I sure got my comeuppance! Scott Wolter is blessed to have eloquent and insightful advocates like the Reverend Phil Gotsch!
Kal
12/27/2014 09:16:24 am
SW means to release it in order to trap bloggers into 'feeling sorry for him' or possibly 'libeling themselves' but it would seem the only one trapping anyone is SW ensnared in his own. Amusing also is that in one episode he looked for the Holy Grail in a well and used as back hoe. Charming. If it wasn't made up, he would have utterly crushed any such cup in the dig. Seeing one stone for another and selling it would be bad too, for anyone foolish enough to buy any of it wholesale from someone of his expertise.
Reply
EP
12/27/2014 09:37:54 am
Nah, what he needs is for life to give him a mighty kick in the posterior.
Reply
EP
12/27/2014 11:20:03 am
By the way, while no one is more eager than I am to discuss Scott Wolter's latest loss of dignity, Jan Brenner's book is really worth a look (especially for free!). It is a wonderfully readable "advanced introductory" text on the ancient mystery cults and their influence and historiography. Plus, it is surprisingly humorous:
Reply
Shane Sullivan
12/27/2014 12:07:58 pm
"Your mastery of the Internet has created a following for sure..."
Reply
EP
12/27/2014 12:24:18 pm
Would it be an *Honorary* Master of the Internet? :)
Reply
Shane Sullivan
12/27/2014 05:54:07 pm
It would be unethical to put that on his resume, as no actual coffee ever changed hands.
Duke of URL
12/28/2014 02:45:48 am
If I knew Jason's physical address, I think I'd order him a "Master of the Internet" coffeecup from Amazon.
EP
12/28/2014 03:32:12 am
Jason, are you reading this? Set up a PO box for this shit! :)
Joe S
12/30/2014 05:10:30 am
EP:
EP
12/30/2014 06:40:45 am
An Honorary Masters first thing in the morning keeps my resolve rock-hard! :D
Only Me
12/27/2014 12:41:43 pm
Per Scott Wolter's comment to Jason on his own blog:
Reply
EP
12/27/2014 12:58:30 pm
Scott Wolter's entire public image is built around appearing intrepid and in control.
Reply
Jerky
12/29/2014 08:32:07 am
Makes me wounder about other court cases from that state involving one Scott Wolter that I have heard rumors of...
Reply
EP
12/29/2014 11:02:46 am
I know of one other one, involving insurance. I believe he won, but I'd like to know more about it...
Jerky
12/29/2014 03:50:05 pm
EP, so would I...
EP
12/30/2014 04:50:52 am
Minnesota case No. 10-C5-96-000519
lurkster
12/27/2014 12:56:06 pm
Sometimes, shit hits the fan on the internet and then disappears later when people realized they kicked the hornets nest. So I archived a copy of the dust up on SW blog for posterity's sake:
Reply
A.D.
12/27/2014 01:08:54 pm
Did Scott Wal-Nut really think you were a space alien theorist advocate?LOL
Reply
Dan
12/27/2014 01:45:25 pm
I can't wait for the review of tonight's show.
Reply
EP
12/27/2014 01:48:26 pm
http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mc4oajSpxC1qzytg1.jpg
Reply
RLewis
12/27/2014 02:36:33 pm
Spoiler alert - America was originally colonized by ants.
Reply
Clint Knapp
12/27/2014 03:03:26 pm
Shhhhh... don't tell Scott:
EP
12/27/2014 03:06:57 pm
Arcaheological evidence shows that the last of the Ant People perished at the hand of the invading Sea Monkeys.
Shane Sullivan
12/27/2014 05:53:24 pm
www.youtube.com/watch?v=8P27cyhFo6E
Duke of URL
12/28/2014 02:49:19 am
Speaking for the Trilobites of the Great Nebraska Sea, /We Shall Return and Overcome/! Those arthropods can't keep their stolen land forever!
CHV
12/27/2014 02:13:46 pm
"I believe these maps were largely based on information derived from both earlier European and Chinese sources. I do agree that at this point it is hard to conclusively prove."
Reply
T
12/27/2014 04:45:57 pm
I'm frankly surprised that he asked to be "challenged" over this ridiculous episode. Perhaps he got antsy thinking that tonight's episode would lend him credibility. It didn't. However, the basic theory- a French carved stone from the 17th century- is certainly more palatable than most of his claims. But to then "ban" the criticism to the basement is undefendable. Hence my appearance.
Reply
T
12/27/2014 04:49:05 pm
I understand puffery, but he should really change the name of his blog from "Scott Woltor Answers."
Reply
CHV
12/28/2014 08:53:18 am
Every time Scott is challenged, he tends to think of himself as a heroic voice in the wilderness being shouted down by academic thugs. Yet what he does not understand is that one cannot build (or refute) an existing fact based on hearsay or sloppy research. It takes new facts to revise prior ones.
~~~~
12/29/2014 10:54:43 am
but this is why he becomes more and more heroic
tm
12/28/2014 02:09:57 am
The only way Wolter can get numbers to his blog is by generating especially dumbheaded controversy. The only blogs to get more posts than this one were the ones on his coffee cup masters and criticizing the Smithsonian. The rest of his numbers are pretty pathetic for a weekly blog.
Reply
mike b
12/29/2014 12:58:37 am
I find it amazing that SW posted his blog about the show last night at 712 pm and at 855 am EST there are no replies on it, positive or negative. Its kind of hard to promote your "finds", opinions and hypothesis, when you (SW) don't allow opposite viewpoints to promote discussion. Great job as always Jason.
Reply
B L
12/29/2014 03:26:38 am
I think the big takeaway from this Jason/Wolter conversation is.....
Reply
T
12/29/2014 04:12:11 am
I don't doubt that at all. Nothing could be clearer (unless it was carved in a rock).
Reply
Clint Knapp
12/29/2014 04:59:12 am
Scott commented personally on the article about his fake Honorary Masters Degree, so it can be demonstrated that he was at least reading in that instance. His comments on his own blog conversation, however, state that he has been told about topics like Jason bringing up this whole court case.
Reply
Rev. Phil Gotsch
12/29/2014 07:38:27 am
"Clint" --
EP
12/29/2014 09:26:47 am
Given how repetitive and vacuous your posts tend to be, "what you know" isn't very much. Certainly nothing anyone here seems to find interesting.
Clint Knapp
12/29/2014 03:29:03 pm
I'll thank you to stop putting my name in quotes as though it's made up. I use my real name just like you do, Phil, and I don't apply pretentious quotations to your name when addressing you.
.
12/29/2014 04:58:00 am
if the budget was not so tight, H2 neatly would have a staffer
Reply
EP
12/29/2014 05:04:37 am
I hope Jason is kind enough to deliver us from having to scroll though more of this drivel. Most of these posts fail to express coherent thoughts, even off-topic coherent thoughts!
Reply
j*a*d
12/29/2014 05:47:29 am
"Unless he has a staff giving him daily briefings about Jason's blog and keeping a timeline for him, I would speculate that he's a regular visitor here." B L
Reply
T
12/29/2014 05:55:11 am
"its the way he worded
Reply
Dan
12/29/2014 06:23:25 am
Gunn is now over there trying to get Wolter to engage him about all that connected waterways nonsense.
Reply
EP
12/29/2014 06:30:02 am
Scott Wolter has managed to assemble all the brightest lights of the Internet world: Gunn, JaredMithrandir, ., Steve StC...
Reply
T
12/29/2014 06:55:32 am
Never say he didn't accomplish something.
Snarky
12/29/2014 03:53:15 pm
Good one! a new trinity!
EP
12/29/2014 05:29:32 pm
3.5, if we count "." :)
Dan
12/29/2014 05:21:27 pm
So, I am an attorney and I can say for certain that the lengths to which a case must travel before it not only reaches the level of a lawsuit, but actually gets to a post-trial verdict indicates that each side dug in their heels to the point of no return.
Reply
Dan
12/29/2014 05:24:23 pm
sorry, a couple of typos there:
Reply
Rev. Phil Gotsch
12/30/2014 01:54:48 am
"Dan" --
Reply
EP
12/30/2014 02:04:31 am
How often do experts get sued about agate confusion, and lose, having the judge declare that they should have known the difference?
Rev. Phil Gotsch
12/30/2014 02:16:21 am
The judge made a mistake … It happens …
EP
12/30/2014 02:24:41 am
I'm sure everyone here is already convinced of Scott Wolter's innocence. You may stop repeating yourself now.
T
12/30/2014 02:58:59 am
"The issue was not an ability to distinguish ... 'Brazil' agates from Lake Superior agates ... That indeed is easy"
Joe D.
12/30/2014 03:11:55 am
Again how did the judge make a mistake? If wolter stated it was a Lake Superior and it was not was it fair to Peterson? Even if it was a honest mistake on Wolters side should Peterson not be compensated?
Dan
12/30/2014 03:20:32 am
This makes no sense whatsoever. To "distinguish" one rock from another is THE EXACT THING as "innocently misidentifying" one rock from another.
Rev. Phil Gotsch
12/30/2014 04:19:21 am
"Dan" --
EP
12/30/2014 04:26:18 am
"But in THIS case at issue, THE question was one individual particular stone which was not sitting in a pile of 99 others …"
Rev. Phil Gotsch
12/30/2014 04:41:35 am
"EP" --
EP
12/30/2014 04:49:57 am
Rev, you sound angry... If your resolve remains hard for more than an hour at a time, you really need to go to an emergency room...
Matt Mc
12/30/2014 05:03:39 am
Rev keep spouting all you want.
EP
12/30/2014 05:07:28 am
Don't forget Wolter irreparably damaging his precious KRS through sheer negligence and/or incompetence.
Rev. Phil Gotsch
12/30/2014 05:23:37 am
"EP" --
Matt Mc
12/30/2014 05:35:08 am
Yes you are stating simple things that contradict the facts on the public record without presenting anything as a rebuttal except that you know him.
EP
12/30/2014 05:48:36 am
Scott Wolter was judicially found to have been ignorant, negligent, and/or fraudulent in his professional dealings. That's a fact.
Rev. Phil Gotsch
12/30/2014 06:43:48 am
"EP" (whoever you are) --
EP
12/30/2014 06:46:05 am
LOL
Matt Mc
12/30/2014 08:47:48 am
EP - Do not forget the Wolter and his special committee found that the AVM runestone was authentic after running Wolters super secret weathering tests. Wolter and team only admitted that it was a hoax once the hoaxers came forward and admitted they made the carvings a meager 15 years before. Wolters after the fact acceptance of the hoax all of the sudden included him saying he found things that caused him to question the authenticity of the stone, none of which was mentioned when he claimed it was authentic.
Rick
12/29/2014 06:09:13 pm
Does anyone have any cached data for SW's blog on the walls in California? He seems to have went back and deleted some of his own posts. I'm curious as to what they say. He seems like he has quite the temper based on his BS comments on his Amazon reviews.
Reply
Only Me
12/29/2014 06:46:33 pm
Check out lurkster's post further up the comments section.
Reply
Clint Knapp
12/30/2014 12:03:50 am
He sure did, and he did it at user-level instead of admin-level:
Reply
EP
12/30/2014 02:05:21 am
I wonder if Wolter even has admin privileges on his own blog...
Clint Knapp
12/30/2014 02:09:44 am
I'm sure he does, unless he really has someone else screening his posts and pretending to be him when he mentions deleting comments. It seems more likely he just hasn't received his Honorary Masters of the Internet coffee yet.
EP
12/30/2014 02:25:22 am
I was mostly joking, but yeah, what you said :)
Joe D.
12/30/2014 03:07:10 am
He must have done it immediately after posting it. I was real curious about his response since it was to my post. I think he regrets asking for his skeptics to come to his site
EP
12/30/2014 03:15:46 am
Regret? That's not the Scott Wolter I know! I bet his resolve is uncomfortably hard right now! :)
Rick
12/30/2014 03:44:09 am
When I posted that earlier post about the removed comment I didn't think to mention that there were two posts removed. If you go to the current page there is one removed. In regards to JD. I assume after he flew off the handle in reply he wen back to read the ultimate in civility that was JD's post and realized he was making himself look worse(if that's possible).
EP
12/30/2014 03:48:33 am
When I really want to be sure, I always save the page as image.
Rick
12/30/2014 04:04:36 am
I think both comments removed are one in a the same. The time stamp is the same. I'm assuming the time stamp is for posting and not for removing. I think he could remove two in a minute but not compose two in a minute. The placement must be a quirk of Google cache for whatever reason.
Only Me
12/30/2014 04:31:55 am
I must be missing something. I've looked at the page and I haven't seen anything saying a comment was removed. Since I didn't visit the page yesterday, I don't know what comments may have been removed.
EP
12/30/2014 04:37:10 am
It says it was removed in the cached version. The notice itself has also been removed.
T
12/30/2014 03:36:03 am
Well SW apparently succeeded in getting traffic to this site back up in regards to his entertaining show (READ: trainwreck).
Reply
EP
12/30/2014 03:44:48 am
With friends like Rev... :)
Reply
EP
12/30/2014 03:43:34 am
I think it would be helpful to have relevant bits of the judgment in front of our eyes:
Reply
Dan
12/30/2014 04:03:24 am
As I said above, buried in another thread, the most troubling aspect of this case is that fact that it went all the way to verdict. That is sure evidence that Wolter steadfastly refused to acknowledge any error -- digging in his heels to the end even in the face of the three choices above.
Reply
EP
12/30/2014 04:21:00 am
Can you imagine how hard his resolve must have been?! :)
Rev. Phil Gotsch
12/30/2014 04:24:15 am
"Dan" --
EP
12/30/2014 04:31:38 am
Civil cases are not about "innocence". And yes, people settle them all the time. Especially when they made a mistake (of one kind or another).
Jerky
12/30/2014 05:14:25 am
rev, I'm sure it was, Let me tell you something, every criminal convected of crime proclaims there innocence. Every last one of them. They all have excuses for why they are not guilty. Even when all evidence points to them as the guilty party. So you will have to excuse me if I don't buy what your selling. It all just comes off as just another excuse.
Rev. Phil Gotsch
12/30/2014 04:32:02 am
"EP" --
Reply
EP
12/30/2014 04:36:25 am
A VERY large force, with a VERY hard resolve...
Joe D.
12/30/2014 04:46:33 am
Again how was the judge wrong. Was the agate that wolter traded with Peterson Brazilian or from Lake Superior. I think you are trying so hard to say he didn't intentionally cheat Peterson. We get your point. But all the judge ruled was that the parties return each object to the original owner. But since wolter sold his he had to compensate Peterson the value. Again how was the judge wrong???
Clint Knapp
12/30/2014 05:34:06 am
No one cares about the Earth Science/Rockhound community, Phil. No one. Sell all the misrepresented rocks you want, or all the properly-identified ones. It doesn't matter.
Rev. Phil Gotsch
12/30/2014 05:46:24 am
"EP" --
Only Me
12/30/2014 06:32:52 am
Not properly or reliably identifying a stone is, by definition, incompetence or negligence.
EP
12/30/2014 06:36:11 am
So let me get this straight, Rev: You're saying that *expert witnesses* in this case are incompetent because they failed to exonerate Scott Wolter of all three of fraud, incompetence and negligence? Because that's what it sounds like you're saying. And it is ridiculous. Even by the standards of your levels of desperation and ineptitude.
EP
12/30/2014 06:39:53 am
@ Clint "Clint Knapp" Knapp:
Rev. Phil Gotsch
12/30/2014 08:44:22 am
"EP" --
EP
12/30/2014 08:47:58 am
"Not all "experts" are as advertised... Based upon my own considerable knowledge and experience of these matters..."
Matt Mc
12/30/2014 08:50:48 am
or for that matter why should we take Wolters expertise at face value? there is enough demonstrable evidence that he prone to either making errors or false claims.
EP
12/30/2014 08:55:27 am
Scott Wolter wrote a whole book on agates! :)
Rev. Phil Gotsch
12/30/2014 08:57:59 am
"EP" --
EP
12/30/2014 09:02:08 am
For more on Rev. Phil Gotsch not needing to prove anything to us, refer to the rest of this thread :)
Matt Mc
12/30/2014 09:02:10 am
nor have you..
EP
12/30/2014 04:59:26 am
Rev 12/30/2014 12:24pm: "The fact that Scott Wolter steadfastly went ahead in defending his honor IMHO speaks to his integrity and the fact that HE KNEW that he had not done anything wrong …"
Reply
T
12/30/2014 05:10:48 am
BOOM!!
T
12/30/2014 05:11:54 am
He didn't have the resolve to see it through. Quitter.
Rev. Phil Gotsch
12/30/2014 05:26:05 am
LOL …
EP
12/30/2014 05:34:09 am
"If Scott Wolter were observed walking on water, the Haters would exclaim, "Look … !!! He can't even swim … !!!""
Reply
Rev. Phil Gotsch
12/30/2014 06:01:59 am
"EP" --
Reply
EP
12/30/2014 06:38:29 am
So Jason should go back to his basement, while I should get out more often? So confusing. The Rock Community is waaaay over our heads, y'all!
Joe D.
12/30/2014 06:56:41 am
Phil,
Reply
T
12/30/2014 07:10:54 am
I think he's trying to unconvincingly thread the needle in that while a mistake WAS made (presumably by both parties), it was such a mistake that a professional and competent rock dude could make. Thus, it does not rise to the level of negligence or professional incompetence (and of course we know his position regarding Wolter and fraud), but rather what occurred was a simple and honest, reasonable, mistake.
Reply
T
12/30/2014 07:12:44 am
Whoops regarding the floating words at the bottom of my last post!
Rev. Phil Gotsch
12/30/2014 08:51:59 am
"T" --
T
12/30/2014 09:09:56 am
What was the plaintiff looking to win in the lawsuit from SW, may I ask? What were his demands to resolve it?
Rev. Phil Gotsch
12/30/2014 08:49:12 am
Joe D. --
Reply
Joe D.
12/30/2014 08:53:40 am
So are you stating that Wolter did have a Lake Superior Agate and that the Judge was incorrect in concluding it was a Brazilian Agate?
Rev. Phil Gotsch
12/30/2014 08:55:19 am
Joe D. --
Matt Mc
12/30/2014 08:57:29 am
In this case the judge said basically that someone with the background like Wolter, who literally wrote a book on the subject, should of been able to properly identify the stone. The judge determined either Wolter was not a competent as he claims or was knowingly fraudulent.
EP
12/30/2014 09:03:25 am
More precisely: Scott Wolter was found to be either (1) incompetent, or (2)negligent, or (3) fraudulent.
EP
12/30/2014 09:06:01 am
"The judge did not understand -- or take into account -- the complexity of identifying a specimen of unknown or murky provenance ..."
Rev. Phil Gotsch
12/30/2014 01:25:23 pm
Joe D. --
Reply
EP
12/30/2014 01:34:00 pm
Look at your pathetic attempts to grasp at nonexistent straws! Joe D. clearly didn't mean it in the sense that you're attempting to ascribe to him. At the some time, you are continuing to ignore the chorus of challenges to substantiate your baseles and barely coherent assertions.
EP
12/30/2014 08:59:32 am
Compares Scott Wolter to Jesus.
Reply
Rev. Phil Gotsch
12/30/2014 09:13:27 am
Again … The judge's ruling indicated that he did not understand or take into account the real world complexities of proper identification, especially in a case or murky or unknown provenance …
Reply
EP
12/30/2014 09:14:43 am
Again: And you know that how? What evidence is there for this claim other than that the judge didn't rule in Wolter's favor?
Reply
T
12/30/2014 09:16:36 am
But what does this hypo have to do with the case at hand?
Reply
Rev. Phil Gotsch
12/30/2014 09:18:26 am
LOL … *shrug*
Reply
EP
12/30/2014 09:21:15 am
No one here has any idea what that means. And it doesn't help establish that you're an expert.
Reply
Matt Mc
12/30/2014 09:23:34 am
I bet you have.
Reply
Joe D.
12/30/2014 09:29:54 am
So Phil
Reply
Rev. Phil Gotsch
12/30/2014 09:32:38 am
Joe D. --
Joe D.
12/30/2014 09:35:51 am
So basically what the judge actually did. One hell of a mistake by him!!
EP
12/30/2014 09:41:11 am
@ Joe D.
Rev. Phil Gotsch
12/30/2014 09:45:15 am
So …
EP
12/30/2014 09:55:39 am
Hey Rev, that you?
T
12/30/2014 10:05:06 am
Not so fast.
Joe D.
12/30/2014 10:26:31 am
Like I said it was basically the ruling. But many here are correct in saying that the judge did indicate that wolter was negligent. ut would have made this whole conversation a lot quicker if the rev would have actually read the ruling before claiming that the judge made a mistake. Or the several posts repeating the ruling.
EP
12/30/2014 10:52:48 am
They are doing their best to imitate their idol, Joe D. :)
EP
12/30/2014 09:54:44 am
Again, for those feigning mental disability... Here is what the court found:
Reply
T
12/30/2014 10:09:12 am
Agree. It is a completely baseless claim. He points to nothing to indicate that the judge "didn't get it." Besides the outcome the Phil doesn't like, where in the ruling is it "indicated that he did not understand ...."?
Reply
CHV
12/30/2014 10:22:35 am
Had Scott felt that the judge in question made a procedural mistake in his decision, he could have filed an appeal. Did that ever happen?
EP
12/30/2014 10:28:10 am
Not to my knowledge. Rev agrees, saying that appeal was too much of a hassle. While also saying that Scott Wolter is to be commended for defending himself in court.
T
12/30/2014 10:43:03 am
BWAAHHAHA!
EP
12/30/2014 10:57:21 am
Perhaps one of the lawyers reading this could look up the case on one of the fancy lawyerly electronic databases and get whatever other documents to which Jason may not have had easy access.
Jerky
12/30/2014 11:22:17 am
I happen to be good friends with my counties newly elected judge, I was a practicing lawyer until he got elected. I can try to ask him about it before he take office as judge but I don't know if theres enough time.
EP
12/30/2014 11:37:50 am
Jerky, while you're at it, see if he can hook you up with the documents for that other case whose number I posted above. I don't know if Jason already has it, but even if it's not worth it for Jason to post I'm sure people are curious to know at least what it was about.
Jerky
12/30/2014 12:02:57 pm
I'll only ask on the one witch jason posted that Scott made it possible to post. I dont want to do something that could get jason or my self in trouble. But im not sure if he can or will be willing. Ill ask him if i see him again, but he just moved out of his office to the court house today, he might be to busy. So don't get your hopes up.
Jerky
12/30/2014 12:07:03 pm
"newly elected judge, I was a practicing lawyer"
EP
12/30/2014 12:17:55 pm
You're not going to get in trouble for reading about the other case yourself or for telling us what it was about.
T
12/30/2014 11:15:41 am
As an aside, the court explicitly recognized SW as a known "expert" in his field. Maybe the judge did get its order wrong as Phil asserts ;)
Reply
EP
12/30/2014 11:35:13 am
Hey... Scott Wolter's archaeological and historical work wasn't on trial ;)
Reply
Rev. Phil Gotsch
12/30/2014 12:56:04 pm
"T" --
Reply
Rev. Phil Gotsch
12/30/2014 12:02:53 pm
Okay, I'll try it again … (I hope that this time it will come across in English, rather than Serbo-Croatian,so that people can read it and understand it …)
Reply
EP
12/30/2014 12:23:26 pm
This is just a huffety-puffety way of repeating your baseless assertion that the judge made a mistake due to failing to consider the nature of these stones. You still haven't presented a single reason to suppose that the judge failed to consider it.
Reply
Rev. Phil Gotsch
12/30/2014 12:54:09 pm
"EP" --
EP
12/30/2014 01:02:09 pm
Tell us more about unalterable convictions, Mr. 25+ years...
Matt Mc
12/30/2014 12:23:34 pm
Nothing you say changes anything.
Reply
Rev. Phil Gotsch
12/30/2014 01:05:28 pm
Although completely predictable, these bits do become comical ...
Reply
EP
12/30/2014 01:07:16 pm
Keep on rollin with dem punches, Rev! Atta boy!
Reply
Rev. Phil Gotsch
12/30/2014 01:12:47 pm
Mr. Miyagi had more than one student …
EP
12/30/2014 01:28:31 pm
Rollin. With. Dem. Punches.
Clint Knapp
12/30/2014 03:43:51 pm
Hillary Swank aside, did Phil seriously just proclaim himself a student of a fictional character from an 80s movie?
Rev. Phil Gotsch
12/30/2014 04:01:36 pm
Clint --
tm
12/30/2014 02:49:36 pm
Unfortunately, the most predictable thing here, whether Mr. Wolter is selling his rocks or his theories, is caveat emptor.
Reply
mike b
12/30/2014 01:46:32 pm
Heard this rebroadcast on our local radio channel this morning. Its originally from Nov. 13
Reply
Only Me
12/30/2014 02:51:20 pm
*SIGH*
Reply
T
12/30/2014 03:03:15 pm
In the interests of being even handed, the judge found that it was more likely than not (not beyond a reasonable doubt) that SW was negligent or fraudulent in regards to this deal. As such he was found civilly liable to the plaintiff; he was not found (or tried) for a crime, so it's incorrect to say he was found "guilty" of anything in this case.
Reply
Only Me
12/30/2014 03:10:56 pm
I've never said Scott was guilty of a crime. Unlike Phil, I read the judgment.
T
12/30/2014 03:24:58 pm
You're right. I meant to post this generally, not at you. Mea culpa.
EP
12/31/2014 05:50:20 am
Too bad no one wants to discuss Jan Bremmer's book :(
Reply
T
12/31/2014 11:18:41 am
For anyone that follows TV Tropes, America Unearthed has made it on there.
Reply
Only Me
12/31/2014 11:49:35 am
That's awesome! Thanks, T!
Reply
EP
12/31/2014 12:08:09 pm
Goddammit, I can't log into TV Tropes!
Reply
Rick
12/31/2014 12:37:05 pm
I like the reference to Rev. Phil. Lol
Reply
EP
12/31/2014 02:22:13 pm
I still can't log into TV Tropes... Someone really needs to add these (among others):
Reply
Dan
12/31/2014 03:11:40 pm
Also, "Ignored Expert" needs to be Scott Dawson from the Roanoke Dare Stones episode.
Reply
mike b
1/1/2015 05:23:54 am
From Tvtropes
Reply
Dan
1/1/2015 06:30:41 am
Jerky isn't "getting informal advice", he's potentially asking his friend (lawyer, now judge) for access to court papers. I have access to Federal cases through PACER and cases from my own jurisdiction, but I don't have access to state cases from Minnesota, hence I have not volunteered to get the case where I don't have access to get it.
Reply
Jerky
1/1/2015 06:57:15 am
I asked him to look at it. He is intrigued by this case and said he would think about looking at it if he has the time. but like i said, i wouldn't get my hopes up. The man is a good man, was a scout master for a scout troop one county over, He was one of 3 people the Governor of my state looked at for replacing the judge and he swore if he wasn't appointed, thin he would run for election and win, and that is exactly what he did. I never asked him or said i would ask him for advice, poor dear old Cicero.
Reply
Jerky
1/1/2015 07:03:19 am
(my post above was directed at Cicero, hit the wrong reply button)
Jerky
1/1/2015 07:39:06 am
Dan, I asked him yesterday afternoon. He said he would look into it, but since he is a lawyer/judge from Oklahoma, I think it will be the same as you. But there is no harm in asking, and when I explained the jest of the case to him, he got interested in it. Said he might look into it if he has the time.
Reply
Troppy
1/1/2015 02:42:39 pm
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Creator/ScottWolter
Reply
9/26/2015 12:01:27 pm
Not only is Wolter wrong about many things including the origins of the K stone but he seems to come dangerously close to blatantly taking others ideas and presenting them as his own. I have recently uncovered the entire truth of the K stone and it is nothing like what he is telling you. There is a family that lives in Alexandria Minnesota that has valued all the symbols on the K stone for hundreds of years. They are associated with those that created the Hudson's Bay Company. This family is also associated with the creation of the College of William and Mary thus explaining why their logo is the Auspice of Mary including four "Hooked X's". I say that is quotes because they are actually the Greek letter Chi.
Reply
Your comment will be posted after it is approved.
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorI am an author and researcher focusing on pop culture, science, and history. Bylines: New Republic, Esquire, Slate, etc. There's more about me in the About Jason tab. Newsletters
Enter your email below to subscribe to my newsletter for updates on my latest projects, blog posts, and activities, and subscribe to Culture & Curiosities, my Substack newsletter.
Categories
All
Terms & ConditionsPlease read all applicable terms and conditions before posting a comment on this blog. Posting a comment constitutes your agreement to abide by the terms and conditions linked herein.
Archives
November 2024
|