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

Review of America Unearthed S02E01 "Ark of the Covenant"

12/1/2013

268 Comments

 
When your press materials describe you as “a real-life Indiana Jones” and you spent the first season of your show trying and failing to find the Holy Grail, what do you do for an encore? Well, you take a cue from Raiders of the Lost Ark and try and fail to find the Ark of the Covenant, of course! That’s the premise for America Unearthed S02E01 “Ark of the Covenant,” the series’ first new episode since March 15 of this year. But before we can get to the episode, I need to discuss what happened between seasons.

Between Seasons Events

From December 2012 to March 2013, I reviewed the first thirteen episodes of America Unearthed, and I published a book of expanded versions of these reviews, Unearthing the Truth. Between the first season finale and the second season premiere, H2 and the History channel have had America Unearthed on a near-continuous rotation, helping to build the show into the fledgling H2 channel’s first bona fide hit series, averaging 800,000 viewers per airing. As a result, hundreds of thousands of readers have visited my blog, read my reviews, and commented on them. I’m sure more than a few new readers are joining us for the first time for coverage of the second season of America Unearthed. Therefore, I need to offer some disclosure to make sure I’ve fulfilled my ethical obligations before critiquing the show.

I am the author of a 2005 book exploring the history and sociology of the ancient astronaut theory called The Cult of Alien Gods. As a result of my work, Ancient Aliens on the History Channel (as it was then called) attacked me by name in 2009. I began reviewing episodes of Ancient Aliens, and I added America Unearthed to my regular coverage in 2012 only because it happened to follow Ancient Aliens. However, the popularity of the series quickly outstripped that of Ancient Aliens, and soon more people visited by blog to read America Unearthed reviews than anything else I had written.

Show host Scott F. Wolter, a forensic geologist specializing in concrete stability issues, stopped by my blog to offer comments for a time, though these gradually degenerated into name-calling. Two days after the show’s highest-rated episode aired, Wolter came here to accuse me of being afraid of the truth and part of a conspiracy:

I now realize that you and most of your followers are the very same people I have had issues with for years. I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, but no longer. […] In the past, the strong negative reaction I've received was based on fear and I sense that is part of what is going on here. […] Based on the evidence provided by this blog, I've concluded this [is] a site driven by something closer to religious zealotry rather than truly scientific thinking. Paying lip service to "science" doesn't mean you practice it.

Wolter was not content to stop there. As I readied Unearthing the Truth for publication, Wolter contacted the lawyers for A+E Networks, the parent of H2, and asked them to do what they could to stop me from criticizing him. A+E used one of New York’s highest-profile intellectual property attorneys and had her threaten a lawsuit that appeared designed to intimidate me into silence. They demanded changes to Unearthing the Truth’s cover design to remove material that Scott Wolter claimed to own (a distinctive X-shaped rune with a hook on one stave which Wolter calls “the Hooked X,” a term he registered as a trademark) but which A+E later admitted in writing was in the public domain. They seemed to hope it would be too costly to fight them; in fact, the lawyer said as much to me in a telephone conversation, reminding me repeatedly of the cost of taking a case to court with an attorney as powerful as she. I made the requested changes (at no cost to me), which included publishing on the cover of the book a full-sentence disclaimer that my book was not authorized by A+E Networks. With no other avenues to challenge my book, the company withdrew their threatened lawsuit.

Shortly after Wolter’s efforts to sue me, he released a book, Akhenaten to the Founding Fathers, which further developed material from the America Unearthed series. (My four part review is here: Part 1 • Part 2 • Part 3 • Part 4.) At my request, given what A+E Networks required of me, A+E Networks required Wolter to publish a disclaimer acknowledging that the network did not support or endorse his book, which claimed, among other things, that a Nazi sympathizer had some good ideas about Nordic conquest of the pre-Columbian Americas and that Oreos hide Freemason-Templar secrets in their chocolaty cookies. (This did not stop H2 from advertising the book with an on-screen graphic during the show.)

Therefore, please note that this review is not and will never be affiliated with Scott Wolter, Committee Films, H2, or A+E Networks.

With that disclosure out of the way, we can move on to tonight’s episode, in which Wolter mistakes nineteenth-century British Israelist fantasies for historical truth.

The Episode

The show opens with a group of men carrying the Ark of the Covenant through some sepia-toned woods. One carves a symbol for the ark, unknown to Hebrew history, into a tree trunk, and another carries a rock with the same symbol, a square with two triangles at the upper corners. We will not find out where that symbol came from until the end of the hour. They cross a desert and make the same symbol out of small pebbles. The Ark kills a man with its power, riffing on the story of Uzzah in 2 Samuel 6:6-7 (in fact, the casting sheet for the episode originally described the character as Uzzah), turning him to stone, and he crumbles away—a story that of course is not found in any texts having to do with America—or Israel. The original of this story occurred when David brought the Ark to Jerusalem:

When they came to the threshing floor of Nakon, Uzzah reached out and took hold of the ark of God, because the oxen stumbled. The Lord’s anger burned against Uzzah because of his irreverent act; therefore God struck him down, and he died there beside the ark of God.

There’s nothing about turning to stone or crumbling to dust (and somehow America Unearthed didn’t include any oxen); instead, it appears to be the show’s effort to show off its increased special effects budget for season two. The crumbly stone man is never discussed in the hour, and this marks the first time in the series’ history that the “reenactment” on the show includes blatant fiction that the show never claims as a fringe history fact.

The show’s familiar credits open by telling us that despite Scott Wolter’s best efforts in the first season, history is somehow still wrong and Wolter has more work to do to set it right.

After the credits, Wolter reintroduces himself as “a modern-day Indiana Jones,” though humbly attributing it to “some people” saying so—the “some people” being H2’s publicist, who blanketed TV trade publications with press releases making the claim. He then explains that he intends to reenact Raiders of the Lost Ark. He briefly describes the storybook version of the Ark of the Covenant and announces that he believes it is hidden in America. Although he will use conditional verbs (“may have,” “could have”) throughout the hour, on several occasions he explicitly asserts his belief that the conditional speculation is in fact true. He says he has four sites that could lead to its location: The Hill of Tara in Ireland; Aldie, Virginia; Coshocton, Ohio; and Holbrook, Arizona.

We start at the Hill of Tara in Ireland, where Wolter claims—falsely—that the Ark was last seen. This myth exists only in a certain strain of fringe history myth-making called British Israelism. Wolter fails to inform viewers of the origins of his claims for the Hill of Tara, and it is evident from the presentation of the episode that the producers explicitly tried to keep that origin hidden. As Wolter talks with an expert in Irish history at Tara, rather clumsy edits cut the expert off as she attempts to describe the very recent origins of the myth. It starts with a philosophy called British Israelism, an ideology advocated most forcefully in the nineteenth century that asserted that the British were the direct lineal descendants of the Lost Tribes of Israel and were the Chosen People of God. As a result, England was believed to be the successor state to David’s kingdom, and the royal family of Britain God’s representatives on earth. This philosophy served to justify British imperial claims to world domination, but scholars routinely attacked its outlandish distortions of history in its own time and down to the present. Today, British Israelism is a fringe belief, advocated most forcefully by the white supremacist Christian Identity movement and other white supremacist organizations. Some non-racist organizations maintain the ideology as well, including the British-Israel World Federation, which has denounced many of the original British-Israel claims cited by Wolter.

In 1861 a churchman, the Rev. F. R. A. Glover, wrote a book called England, the Remnant of Judah and the Israel of Ephraim, which I have posted in full in my Library. This was the first text to present the Tara-Jeremiah-Tea Tephi myth given uncritically by Scott Wolter without acknowledgement of the source. In this episode, Wolter claims that a genuine ancient legend said that the Ark of the Covenant traveled with the Stone of Destiny from Israel to Ireland in the company of the prophet Jeremiah and an Egyptian princess named Tea Tephi.

Glover invented Tea Tephi by conflating two mythic figures, Teah (or Tea) and Tephi, who share virtually nothing in common. The “poem” Wolter refers to that supposedly lays out her life and history does not exist—at least not in any ancient source. Wolter also fails to note that the name “Stone of Destiny” is not a biblical name for Jacob’s Pillar, and it does not appear in the Book of Genesis (28:10-22), where it is described only as a “stone” that Jacob had “set up as a pillar” at Beth-El. Colloquially, the stone became known as “Jacob’s Pillow” because he had slept on it when he dreamed of angels ascending a ladder. This was why he set it up as a pillar dedicated to God.

How that stone became attached to the “Stone of Destiny,” a name originally given to the Lia Fáil, the coronation stone of the Irish kings at Tara, is a lengthy story, primarily focused on F. R. A. Glover’s British-Israelist claims with an assist from medieval Scottish propaganda. I described Glover’s ideas in an earlier blog post, and the next few paragraphs are adapted from that blog post, with some minor changes in light of the episode’s specific claims.

Glover’s ideas start with the Apocrypha, where the prophet Jeremiah is said to have hidden the Ark of the Covenant in Mt. Nebo, where it would stay hidden and safe from the invading armies during the destruction of Babylon in 587 BCE (2 Maccabees 2:4–7), a fact Wolter partially acknowledges on the show. Because Jeremiah’s followers could not find it, later writers began to claim that Jeremiah fled with the Ark. In 1024, in the poetry of Cuan O’Cochlain (attributed; many think the source text is older), we read that Tephi, daughter Cino Bactir, a king in Spain, died and her fantastic tomb became Tara. He was repeating a claim made by Amergin in the sixth century. These are the foundational poems that contributed to the myth.

Glover and the British Israelists made Tephi into a daughter of Zedekiah, the last Jewish king before the destruction of Jerusalem in 587 BCE, and had her marry a Milesian (Scot) and bring the Stone of Destiny to Ireland and call it the Pillow of Jacob. This is very much a purposeful misinterpretation of Cuan O’Cochlain’s discussion of how Tephi married Canthon of Britain, and the Britons’ most important idol, the Etherun or Taran, was left in Spain until her body was restored to that country. Tephi’s tomb in Spain then became the model for another tomb in Ireland, called Tara, after the return of the stone idol.

In the Lebor Gabála Érenn, we read that Milesians invaded Ireland, and Glover had the brilliant inspiration to decide that Jeremiah was one of them, when in fact the Irish annals specify that their leader, Ollam Fodlah, was a native king, not one from the Middle East. Glover purposely conflated Tephi, known only from the works cited above, with Tea, a native-born queen married to Heremon, son of Miletus, in Spain just before the Milesian invasion. Since the annals preserve her genealogy in Ireland back at least three generations, she was therefore not the daughter of Zedekiah, despite Glover’s slipshod efforts to revise her history.

The warrant for this is Jeremiah 41:10 and 43:5-7, where a king’s daughters (either Zedekiah’s or Josiah’s; the text is unclear) escape the destruction of Jerusalem. There is no indication they went to Ireland or anywhere else, or that any of them was Tea or Telphi.

All of this is mixed up with the similar legend of Scota, the supposed ancestress of the Scots, whom Irish legends dating back to the 1100s claim was a daughter of Pharaoh from the time of Moses who was exiled, married a prince, and spawned the Scots. Various arguments have been put forward to work Scota and Tea-Tephi into the same myth, or to move Scota from the time of Moses to that of Jeremiah, etc. The Lebor Gabála Érenn however is fairly clear on the point, though some variant manuscripts offers another Scota, daughter of an imaginary pharaoh. The book also claims she was married to a Scythian, whom Glover and other British Israelists identified with the Celts and thus the Lost Tribes of Israel.

Glover, however, was on slightly stronger ground in trying to identify the Stone of Scone, the Scottish coronation stone, with the Lia Fáil in Ireland and thus both as the Stone of Destiny and Jacob’s Pillow. In 1301 Baldred Bisset rewrote Scottish history when he prepared the Scottish submission to the papal curia complaining about English aggression during the Wars of Independence. He wanted to create a counter-myth that would take the Scots from Egypt to Spain and Ireland in order to counter King Edward I’s claims to rule Scotland by descent from Brutus of the British; an older pedigree would give the Scots greater claim. Therefore, he rewrote the Scota myth to make her take the Stone of Scone from Egypt with her during the Exodus, and Robert the Bruce made use of this as anti-English propaganda in 1323; by 1327 William Rishanger recorded in his chronicle that the stone was “the regal stone which Jacob placed under his head.” It would remain forever associated with Jacob, even though geology demonstrates that the stone that passes under the name of Jacob’s Pillow—the Stone of Scone—is a local sandstone block from the region around Scone.

The claim does not appear in literature prior to 1301, and it obviously does not support, even at face value, any of Scott Wolter’s claims about the Stone of Destiny. (Scottish legend, in fact, makes the stone come to Scotland at the hands of a Greek, not of Jeremiah.) This is the only slim line of actual historical detail (though still a myth) connecting either of the coronation stones back to the Middle East—a detail that British Israelists retroactively applied back to the Stone of Destiny in Ireland.

Putting it all together with no mind for chronology or truth, later British Israelists made Jeremiah and Tephi come with the Ark of the Covenant and Jacob’s stone from Egypt to Spain to Ireland, and there hid the Ark at Tara, where it serves to bless the British with its power. And not a word of this is actually found in any of the ancient texts from which the story originates. In 1899 British Israelists conducted damaging digs at Tara in the hope of finding the Ark.

Glover had conflated fragments of genuine poetry and invented identifications for various Irish figures to interpolate Jeremiah into the story. No mention of the Ark exists in these poems; the Book of Tephi, the poem that does describe all of this, is a late nineteenth century poem written in 1897 by John A. Goodchild, based on Glover’s work, that believers like Scott Wolter mistake for a genuine ancient text. It was based on fragments of Irish poetry, Bible passages, and British Israelist literature; the author even admits his “ignorance” of the subject on which he writes in the voice of the imaginary princess!

Naturally, Scott Wolter simply omits all of this history and tells the audience that “legend” says that Tea-Tephi and Jeremiah teamed up to take the Ark and the Stone of Destiny to Ireland, a “legend” that does not exist before the late nineteenth century.

This implies ignorance on the part of Wolter regarding the origins of his claims since Glover was fairly clear that his so-called legend was only hot air and speculation:

If Jeremiah took the Stone, all the marvels about Tara, its Eastern Princess, its Judge, and Mysterious Priest, and the Law, are not only solved, but are necessary events. If it be Jacob's Pillow, and set up by Jeremiah, there is sense in the legend; otherwise, it is an absurdity, and something worse.

[...]

The evidence that is furnished by each of these matters in relation to the others, so acts and re-acts upon the whole of them, that the assurance of the prophet's having brought the Stone, the Blood Royal, and the Standard from Judea, and their being what they are believed to be, - coupled with the great National Fact that the Sceptre in connexion with them still flourishes, and is, of those in all the world, the most illustrious, - may be held to be established to the point of moral certainty.

In short, Glover admitted that he was simply creating a legend out of scattered parts that said no such thing.

At Jack Andrews’s farm in Aldie, Virgina, Scott Wolter goes to visit the alleged “Stone of Destiny,” which no one relates to the Stone of Scone or the Liá Fail, both of which exist and have better claim to the title. He suggests that the Stone of Destiny in Virginia implies that the Ark of the Covenant is in America, too. The medieval propagandists who brought the myth of Jacob’s Pillar to Ireland and Scotland knew nothing of any Ark sightings in the British Isles; that is only a British-Israel claim, and Wolter’s uncritical acceptance is disturbing.

Andrews claims that he owns a stone that Jonathan Swift, the author of Gulliver’s Travels, gave to the first owner of the land. Wolter claims Swift had access to “secret knowledge” due to his position as a Dublin cleric, but he does not explain how the “real” Stone of Destiny was somehow swapped out for the stones passing under that name in Ireland and Scotland. (There is an entire cottage industry in Britain devoted to Stone of Scone conspiracy theories. These tend to argue that the original was replaced either before England’s King Edward I removed the stone from Scone to London or at some other point.)

The Virginia stone, Andrews says, was stolen in a planned raid by unnamed people who saw the stone as the foundation for a New Jerusalem. It was returned by an unspecified method, but the show provides no proof, such as a police report, to document the theft by religious extremists.

Andrews keeps the holy relic in his barn (of course), where Wolter goes to visit it as suggestive music plays loudly, as though this were a revelation. I often have difficulty hearing dialogue when there is loud music, and this episode was sometimes difficult to understand for all the dramatic music bellowing out emotional cues. Wolter views the stone, which is sandstone. It bears no resemblance to Jacob’s pillow, which Genesis tells us was a standing pillar. The rock is shaped like a mid-sized, shallow basin. It looks to me pretty much like a colonial-era or Victorian stone trough, like the kind used in gardens.

After the first commercial, Wolter examines the rock, repeating the fake claim of Tea-Tephi, the British-Israel fantasy created by Glover. He never mentions the concept of British Israelism, or its relationship to modern racism. Again, there is no Stone of Destiny in the Bible, and this is nothing but a medieval Christianization of pagan coronation stones. Wolter might have noticed this if he were familiar with the Bible, which we know from his book Akhenaten to the Founding Fathers he has not read, by his own admission.

Wolter chips off a chunk of the holy Stone of Destiny, damaging what he suspects is God’s own sacred rock, and then examines it under a microscope. He says that breaking a chunk off is the only way to get answers, which outweighs the damage done to the rock. Wolter claims the stone “could have” come from Israel, but he fails to note that the type of sandstone it is made from can be found in many other places besides Israel, including areas of the United States. According to the Commonwealth of Virginia’s Department of Metals, Mines and Energy, the exact type of arkosic sandstone seen here, with its combination of feldspar and quartz, is exceedingly common in the Piedmont region of Virginia, which includes part of the Potomac watershed near Aldie.

In discussing the stone, Andrews claims to have derived his beliefs about it from the “autobiography” of Tea-Tephi, which he claims to have. The Book of Tephi Jack Andrews discusses as the “autobiography” of the princess is a hoax—no, not even a hoax; it is not even presented as true. As I mentioned above, it was a poem written in 1897 by a known author, John A. Goodchild, based on British-Israelist claims and conflated fragments of Irish poetry and biblical passages.

After the second commercial break, Wolter discusses the Ark of the Covenant again, quoting the description of the Ark from Exodus 25:10-22, which he does not actually cite. Before showing us the results of his tests, he begins to tell us about the Lost Tribes of Israel, and he plans to go in search of clues to the Lost Tribes’ American plans.

In Coshocton, Ohio, he visits the infamous Newark Decalogue Stone from 1860. It was found shortly after an earlier stone, called the Keystone, which has been known to be a hoax since July 1860, when scholars determined that the stone was written in Modern Hebrew rather than the version of the language used at the alleged time of the Lost Tribes. Three months later, after the hoax was revealed, a new stone—the Decalogue Stone—emerged written in archaic Hebrew, exactly answering critics’ concerns. Inscribed on it were shortened forms of the Ten Commandments and a picture of Moses. Other stones were found at the site but were admitted to be fake by their hoaxer, dentist John H. Nichol, who inscribed his own name on them in Hebrew to show how easy it is to fake artifacts. Even if the artifacts were genuine, their writing and art style would date them from the period of 100-300 CE (as even the Mormons admit—and they love looking for “Hebrew” artifacts in America!), meaning that the group leaving the artifacts would have left what is now Israel between 700 and 900 years after the group that “brought” the Ark to Ireland. We get almost nothing about these stones before the show goes to yet another commercial.

After the commercial, Wolter claims that the Decalogue Stone passes “the skeptics’” tests of its Hebrew, and he looks at the stone under a microscope with J. Huson McCulloch, a professor of economics and finance at Ohio State and a staunch advocate of fringe history theories. Full disclosure: I have exchanged words with McCulloch over, among other things, the Bat Creek Stone, another of Wolter’s favorite artifacts. Not surprisingly, McCulloch disagrees with most of the things I write.

Wolter next delivers an astounding sentence of multiple negatives to tell us that there is no reason not to believe that the Ark of the Covenant couldn’t have come to America. Wolter then bashes academics and skeptics (I guess that’s me) for the first time this season (it was a regular feature of season one), and concludes that the academics hate anything that breaks their paradigms so therefore we viewers, as good investigators, must embrace them as real. I didn’t really follow all that, and I got a bit lost in the convoluted grammar.

Wolter returns to Minneapolis and his home base to examine his chunk of the Stone of Destiny. En route, he gives us the false dichotomy that if the Ark is in America, it either came because Jonathan Swift was privy to Tea-Tephi’s secrets or because the Lost Tribes came to America. There are a million more possibilities—space aliens, for example, or the exact theory he speculated about last year: that Henry I Sinclair, Earl of Orkney brought it to Nova Scotia in 1398. He examines the stone under a microscope and compares it to a sample of rock from “Israel”—which is a rather broad canvas to look at. How would you know where to look? Did he get his stone from Beth-El, twelve miles north of Jerusalem (possibly modern Beitin in the West Bank), where Genesis says Jacob was? Surely that’s relevant to judging whether the Virginia rock was in fact Jacob’s Pillar. We go to commercial before finding out.

As we return from what by this time I sincerely hoped would be the last commercial break of the hour, Wolter tells us that it’s only a matter of time before the Ark is revealed—rather shocking since that presumes it ever existed in the first place. (He later suggests that there is doubt over its existence, but that his beliefs trump doubt.) Oh, well, back to the microscope for a very long-drawn-out reveal. Wolter repeats his falsehood that Jacob called his rock the “Stone of Destiny”—it was not; Jacob consecrated his stone to God at Beth-El. There is no match to the Israeli sample, and Wolter reports this amidst a flurry of dramatic music and cinematography and editing designed to emphasize the tension leading up to the reveal. I would love to tell you that the negative result means that the Virginia Stone of Destiny is a fake, but since we have no idea where the Israeli sample came from, nor a control of other Virginia sandstone samples, the results are meaningless, and the entire exercise is without value.

Wolter then hands his assistant, Adam Brewer, a photo of a stone wall carving of a rectangle with two triangles atop the rectangle. The rectangle inscribed with two zigzags, and it is a well-documented petroglyph that has been repeatedly photographed at Puerco Pueblo in the Petrified Forest National Park. Wolter identifies it as an image of the Ark of the Covenant. I just don’t see it, myself. Here’s the art, as seen in Wandering Lizard Arizona magazine:

Picture
Alleged "Ark" carving. The "Ark-bearer" to the left appears to have been carved long before the "Ark," which overlaps his arm in part.
The petroglyph looks at first blush like a Native American carving, and its geometric design does not suggest an Ark to me. It could be a fake, but without seeing the carving in person, I can’t offer any additional details. As noted in the comments below, it resembles looms used for weaving blankets, and the triangles above the yarn on sticks feeding the loom. The petroglyphs at the site are believed to have been carved before 1200 CE, probably too late to have had anything to do with post-Exilic wandering Irish Lost Tribes who wrote the Decalogue in Roman-era Hebrew.

We hear that that no other petroglyph from the area is anything like this carving. This is a lie. A nearby petroglyph is very similar (with a decidedly “Templar”-style cross no less!), indicating that the geometric shape was simply part and parcel of the stock of geometric images used in the area’s rock art.

Picture
A "Templar" cross beside what is either an Ark or the judging desk for "America's Got Talent."
It occurs to no one on the show to ask the Hopi or the Navajo, descendants of the Ancestral Pueblo (Anasazi) people of the region, whether the rock art has particular meaning in their culture. Instead, Wolter simply imposes an Anglo-American meaning onto the art, annexing it to his fantasy of Lost Tribes in America. Oddly enough, Wolter chooses not to mention that the Ancestral Pueblo carved a summer solstice marker among the petroglyphs, which the National Park Service has up on its website—odd because Wolter is otherwise so interested in how Templar-Freemasons taught astronomical alignments to all the various American peoples.

Wolter claims that his “trail” of the Ark leads from east to west, which suggests to him that the Ark is hidden in the Grand Canyon—the subject of a later episode of this series. But how exactly does the “trail” do that if the Irish site and the Virginia site are not actually associated with the Ark at all, and the Ohio one is a hoax?

Wolter concludes by telling us that the Ark “could” exist and if it “could” exist then it’s not impossible that the Ark is in America. It sounds like this is going to become the overriding theme of this season, like the Grail last year. Wolter tells us that he will bravely stand up to those who believe that religious relics should be left hidden because he alone has the cojones to get to the truth. Equal parts self-aggrandizing and blindingly ignorant of the “facts” he seeks to find, Scott Wolter lets us know that he’s all man and will keep on fighting those darn ol’ academics and skeptics no matter how much he has to twist truth, adopt fiction as fact, or simply ignore reality to force history to conform to his vision.

Remember: He found no evidence of Jacob’s Pillar, the impetus for this whole investigation, yet somehow this only made him more convinced that the Ark really is in America—even though all of the claims he examined were tied to British-Israelist ideas about Jacob’s Pillow traveling with the Ark—stories that emerged only in the 1800s as “divine” justification for British imperial rule over the vast domains of the Empire.

268 Comments
severina
12/1/2013 05:34:44 am

I, for one, was a wee bit disappointed he didn't take a 2-inch core sample from the Cistern of Destiny.

Reply
Sacqueboutier
12/1/2013 05:38:53 am

Odd that their prop department magically produced an ark on which the cherubs are configured to look like triangles. Anyone ever seen the ark represented like that before? Anybody? Beuller?

This is backward thinking at its worst. He find this petroglyph, decides it looks like the ark, and then produces an ark that looks like the petroglyph.

Reply
George Kelley link
12/1/2013 06:09:42 am

Agreed that was a weird interpretation. I have seen many versions and that was not at all close to what I would come up with.

The whole show made me wonder if this guy takes himself seriously at all.

Reply
Scott Hamilton
12/1/2013 07:21:31 am

I believe the triangular angels are an idea left over from Ancient Alien Theory, positing that those were electrodes and the Ark was a generator or a radio.

Reply
Sacqueboutier
12/2/2013 04:46:00 am

Well, if Wolter does find the Ark, he'd best take great care. Tsoukalos says it's nothing more than an atomic reactor.

Thomas
1/13/2014 08:18:01 am

Does anyone else feel it'd have been funny to have made a full replica of the Ark and put it in some cave in the Grand Canyon then direct Scott to its location by some 'old legend'?

Reply
Sacqueboutier
12/1/2013 05:40:37 am

Alack and alas.....Money needed for true research was blown on special effects. #CrumblingMan

Reply
RLewis
12/1/2013 05:59:51 am

Sooo many problems with this episode. Each of the four pieces of "evidence" was extremely weak. The final piece was laughable - artists who can create representative drawings of people and animals can only manage stylistic triangles for angels? Also, as a life-long Ohioan I can assure you there are thousands of pre-Columbian Native American artifacts found throughout the state - but not one "Hebrew" item.
And was it just me, or was this episode in extra stretch-mode? It seemed like there were many, many recaps - and the map was shown multiple times even after the Virginia "link" was debunked by SW himself.
Very disappointing.

Reply
Jason Colavito link
12/1/2013 06:06:20 am

Oh, yes, it certainly stretched the material out a long way. Last year, they had more crazy claims per hour. This year, looking ahead to the long haul, they seem to be throttling down on the number of claims to get more episodes out of less material.

It is dishonest to use the "map" of "four" sites after Wolter himself debunked one of them outright.

Reply
scott furniss
7/28/2015 11:27:29 am

amazingly childish. you attack and accuse people who lived 200 years ago and more consistently. what facts can you offer to prove that the people you attack were purposefully creating propaganda for Englands sake? sounds like your just another biased whining roman or another whining homosexual atheist. you offer no proof to your readers concerning the accusations you make against the people you have attacked. REAL scientific! your a fucking self deluded spoiled little nerd. go crawl in a hole and fucking die. and take your chubby little fag boyfriend with you.

The Other J.
12/2/2013 08:15:33 pm

Not only were the four pieces of evidence weak, none of them were really all that connected -- and the Tara-Swift-Virginia link is only valid if you believe the 19th century fictions as ancient history.

So I don't really know what we're meant to take away from the episode. Wolter's testing methods are at least slipshod and if he does provide controls and specific samples, he's hiding that from the audience -- not good. But he's also saying we're not to trust academics who would use those broader methodologies, we're to trust him, because he's a concrete expert -- so we're not supposed to trust experts in a specific area, but we are meant to trust his expertise, even when he ends up not proving what he ends up claiming is the case at the end.

W. T. F.

Reply
RLewis
12/1/2013 06:50:29 am

The resemblance is uncanny:

Indiana Real Indiana
Real doctorate/fake college Fake doctorate/real college
Preserves history for science Protects history from science
Uncovers relics to find other relics Fake relics lead to other fake relics
Make-believe character Ditto

Reply
Coridan
12/1/2013 10:43:46 pm

Indy only taught at a fake coppege, his degree came from a real one (U of Chicago) so he has a leg up on Wolter.

Reply
Cory
12/1/2013 07:04:22 am

I'm fairly sure it wasn't the Virginia Stone that was stolen...

Reply
The Other J.
12/2/2013 08:18:57 pm

If not, any enterprising relic hunters in the Piedmont region now know that the guy keeps his sacred relic in a barn that doesn't look too hard to get into. I'm not far from there; I wonder if there will be reports of a break-in soon.

Reply
Only Me
12/1/2013 07:06:01 am

"If the Holy Grail is in America, I'm going to find it." "If the Ark of the Covenant is in America, I'm going to find it."

Real history 2, Scott Wolter 0.

I wonder if he'll investigate the Great Pumpkin, to prove Druids fled to America to escape persecution from the Romans. He'll probably tie in Thanksgiving, saying it was an attempt by church officials to establish a Christian legacy and bury the truth.

Reply
DPH
5/16/2016 01:55:13 pm

Scott Wolter was absolutely telling the truth. Neither of those items are in America, so he didn't find them.

Reply
Dan
12/1/2013 07:09:20 am

The scene at Tara was almost vaudevillian in its humor. The bemused look on the face of the Irish expert was worth the price of admission alone. She's basically telling Wolter that the entire Ark legend is simply the creation of imagination, but he can't let her actually explain without interrupting. Then she gets him, if backhandedly, by describing the very Wolterian 19th Century amateur dig that discovered nothing at all related to the Ark, but actually discarded real artifacts.

And of course in true Wolter style, he completely misrepresented the content of these conversations when relating what he "learned" at Tara to the Ohio character.

Don't get me started about how the Ark is buried in a cave in the Grand Canyon. I prefer not to have my head explode.

Reply
Joyce D
12/1/2013 07:51:12 am

What noticed about the Ireland segment was that when it was revealed that no Ark was found, Scott immediately concluded that "Well then it has to be in America". Why would anyone reach that conclusion?

Reply
StrongStyleFiction link
12/1/2013 05:04:39 pm

The obvious conclusion would be that in now rests in Oompa-Loompa Land. You could plug in any location you can think of and it would have had the same credibility based on his "evidence."

Only Human link
12/4/2013 07:27:28 pm

He actually didn't conclude that the Ark was in America. When she said the Ark was not found there he said then its possible that maybe the Ark did go to America. I'm just stating what was actually said.

My personal belief is that if the Ark even Does still exists today that it's probably hidden under the Temple Mount.

WIlson
5/10/2015 08:25:40 am

Weren't you listening? It could have been brought over and there's a stone that Wolter thinks probably could have been it, if it were brought over that is, and then in that event maybe that means the Ark came with it, so probably that means, if things are as said which seems it must be true, necessarily the Ark is almost probably maybe certainly in America, so we're doing to find it there for sure!

Sheesh, can't you handle simple logic? What are you, one of those academics?

:)

Yes, it was all very convoluted and linguistically really bemusing (I love how these shows build from "probably" and "maybe" and "if..." and then conclude with some enthusiastic "and therefore!" conclusion). It's an art form.

Only Human link
12/4/2013 07:23:09 pm

I just watched this episode again and you are incorrect. She didn't have any look on her face as the camera wasn't even on her when he made the statement. She actually only smiled the entire time.And she didn't say anything about the Ark being a creation of legend, she actually said that there is so many stories that it's hard to separate fact from fiction. She also stated that they knew they found real artifacts but discarded them because they were only focused on finding the Ark.

Reply
Joyce D
12/1/2013 07:29:39 am

I really like watching America Unearthed. I also like wrestling. I like shows about aliens and bigfoot. I know they are all fake.

Scott is so eager to embrace any new claim of Europeans visiting America before Columbus he is creating a new cult following.

At some point the crews of Ancient Aliens need to come together. Next week's episode about the Guidestones may bring those two together.

Scott is a great salesman. Surely some real stone tablets of the Ten Commandments, similar to the ones Judge Roy Moore keeps outside his courthouse will be excavated, and be proven to be thousands of years old.

Reply
jessetheseal
12/25/2013 02:52:53 pm

I want Jason to review one episode of finding bigfoot for my entertainment...

Reply
Mark E.
12/1/2013 07:51:37 am

The "Arc of the Covenant Petroglyph" resembles the weaving looms used by the Pueblos and the bottom pattern depected would fit with how blankets and rugs were commonly decorated.

Reply
Jason Colavito link
12/1/2013 08:08:25 am

Great observation. I will add it to the review.

Reply
Gunn link
12/1/2013 12:55:32 pm

Nor does the image conform to the "sacred geometry" required for the Arc; one side is different from the other, making the container not at all symmetrical. It's too out of balance to be representative of the Ark.

It makes more sense that the Ark was deeply buried before the Babylonian sacking of Jerusalem, and that the Templars found it a thousand or so years after the second sacking of Jerusalem by the Romans. This way, we're back to the Templars bringing it to America, not Lost Tribes.

Maybe they hid it in the geometric center of North America. Maybe the Swedes helped them, just before converting (against their will) to Mandanism...what?

(Beg to differ, Jason...but that cross doesn't resemble a Templar cross.)

Jason Colavito link
12/1/2013 12:59:10 pm

I was being facetious, Gunn. It obviously isn't a Templar cross.

Only Human link
12/4/2013 07:35:01 pm

He's only stating that it resembles a weaving loom, not concluding. It also resembles a Hopi Indian ritual chest which would explain the triangle like features at the top. Then again, it also does have a resemblance to an "Ark type structure" ......still doesn't mean that's it's any of those that I would add to a review.

Mary J
12/1/2013 11:19:22 am

re: "The "Arc of the Covenant Petroglyph" resembles the weaving looms used by the Pueblos and the bottom pattern depected would fit with how blankets and rugs were commonly decorated."

Thank you Mark E. I was going to indicate the same thing.
I watch when I can, and make sure I have popcorn. This episode was one the best comedies yet ;)

Reply
Thane
12/1/2013 12:02:41 pm

Ditto

Titus pullo
12/1/2013 12:26:02 pm

The petrogragh looks like the b2 stealth bomber. Just tilt the white squares and iPod have four flying wings. Where is that guy with te crazy hair? Next weeks episode Scott and David Childress and the hair guy tie it all together.

Jim Courter
12/4/2013 04:07:16 pm

I noticed that your spelling of ark is arc...as in a arc of current. Spell check much?

Bill
2/9/2014 09:32:32 am

Spell check doesn't pick up on incorrect words that are spelled correctly. So to you I say , shutty uppy! Lol

Mandalore
12/1/2013 07:57:42 am

If Wolter went to Ireland, why didn't he take a quick trip to Ethiopia where their claims to have the Ark are much older? I suppose it more pleasant to think of white people with the Ark than black people. And if he was mimicking Indiana Jones, why didn't he go to Petra? A bit of an anglophile clearly.

My bet is that the Ark was destroyed in the Babylonian sack of Jerusalem. Five centuries or so after its supposed creation there may not have been much left to destroy anyway.

Reply
Cohen
12/1/2013 08:48:51 am

There is "an" Ark in Ethiopia without any doubt, but it's not "the" Ark.
It's interesting to speculate on the Ark of the Covenant, and to compare it with similar ancient objects found around the Middle East, ornamented with supernatural deities.

Reply
The Other J.
12/2/2013 08:21:11 pm

I imagine if he goes to Ethiopia at any point, it'll be to prove white people were there first, which would be hard to do in Africa. At least he's on safer ground in Ireland.

Reply
Sacqueboutier
12/1/2013 10:45:02 am

While I believe there probably was an ark of some sort, I don't think it took the form we all know and love. Probably started as some sort of vessel and was embellished over the years until the account was written down during the Babylonian captivity. Tudor Parfitt suggests it was a ceremonial drum/vessel of some sort. Perhaps.

That said, I certainly don't think it would ever have made its way to the U.S. When they cut to the Grand Canyon, who could help but laugh out loud.

One other thing, if Wolter truly believes (apparently) every Biblical artifact found it way to America, why only the U.S.? Isn't there an American south of the equator?

Reply
Dr. Sheldon Cooper
12/1/2013 10:55:50 am

OK...let's take a critical look here.

IF the Ark of the Covenant actually existed, and IF it wasn't melted down at some point (you know...for the gold), doesn't it actually stand to reason that the Israeli government would want it, and would (pardon me for saying it like this) do literally anything to get it? Either it is what the Bible says (powerful, killing all enemies, making an army invincible) which makes it the ultimate military armament, or it is a priceless artifact that belongs to the Jewish people and should be in a museum in Jerusalem or Tel Aviv.

Also nice that he completely ignores the AEthiopian claim that they posses it (as Beta Israel). Oh, wait...they're not part of the Celtic/Irish/Scottish/Angle/Welsh Templars.

Reply
The Other J.
12/2/2013 08:33:58 pm

Take his goofy claim that Jonathan Swift sent the Stone of Destiny to America (at one point he says Swift took it to America -- pretty sure Swift never set foot in the New World). First, Swift was a bit more than a cleric; he was Dean of St. Patrick's Cathedral. Second, the church was founded in 1191 and was Catholic until it converted to Protestantism in 1537 because of the Reformation. So for just a bit under 400 years St. Patrick's was Catholic.

If St. Patrick's had such an artefact, wouldn't it have been shipped off to the Vatican long before the Reformation, and thus long before Swift was ever able to send it to America? I'm not Catholic, but from what I understand, they're pretty good at amassing their relics and artefacts.

(Third, Swift was more interested in taking the piss out of legends and myths than buying into them. I wonder if Wolter has read Gulliver's Travels as carefully as the Bible. Swift was the kind of person who, if presented with the stone, would find all the ways it could be fake and then convince himself to outwardly accept it while silently believing it was a lie -- and then publish a satire in a local paper under an assumed name about it being fake.)

Reply
Dr. Sheldon Cooper
12/5/2013 07:04:41 am

You are correct about the Roman Catholic church amassing "relics" and "artifacts." So, yeah, if there was such a thing, it would be sitting in the Vatican, or chipped up and sent to various parishes (every church has some sort of relic...be it a splinter of the "true cross" or a nail clipping of a saint).

And, yes, Swift would likely make some sort of a modest proposal of some sort. ;-)

Jlook
12/1/2013 11:37:07 am

What seems to be completely overlooked in the lost tribes strand is that the northern tribes of Israel were conquered and dispersed by the Assyrians in 722 BC ... 150 or so years before the Ark was lost!! How on earth did they get their hands on it, to bring it to America?

Reply
DAN D
12/1/2013 11:42:16 am

" How on earth did they get their hands on it, to bring it to America?"

Aliens :)

Reply
Jason Colavito link
12/1/2013 11:43:24 am

The theory is that the Lost Tribes colonized Ireland and Jeremiah, somehow knowing this, took the Ark to them centuries later for safekeeping.

Reply
Thane
12/1/2013 12:06:50 pm

No doubt as were the treasures referred to in the Copper Scroll.

Cory
12/1/2013 01:04:03 pm

I seen a show and the place in Ethiopia that is said to house the "Ark." I could walk in there in take it if I wanted-that's just as bogus as any other claim. There's no Facts to prove it, but I'm sure other people had made it to the unknown land aka America before Columbus.That's what this show is about, and if you don't like it simply don't watch and bitch about something else. A lot of these artifact "hoaxes" were reported hoaxes many years ago, and with better technology they should be reanalyzed. Some of these"Hoaxes" don't make sense. Why would someone go through the trouble to create them, put them out in the middle of the dessert, and hope Scott Wolter stumbles upon 100 years later?

Reply
Thane
12/1/2013 01:49:55 pm

People fake things for many reasons: 1) money, 2) They think its funny, 3) They think it proves them to be superior to the people they fool, 4) Creative Challenge, and 5) Psychosis. I am sure there are a few more reasons.

There is a difference between speculation for speculation's sake and real research and the "re-examination" you seem to think is going on. To do real research, you have to clearly review and separate fact from fiction. You need to understand what are original sources and their accuracy and what they were intended to do as part of the culture and time of their creation. Sometimes myths are just myths and sometimes poems are just creative expression and sometimes histories are more about flattering the patron and denigrating the patron's enemies than a dispassionate examination and record of events.

What Jason does in this blog is to show what the sources are of the non-factual claims made on various shows on History and H2.

The only reason Scott Wolter is even mentioned is because he is the host of one of the shows being critically reviewed.

Reply
Cory
12/1/2013 02:56:28 pm

You need to understand that a lot of research done back in the 20's, 30's, isn't as accurate, nor were the academics who studied them as knowledgeable as they are nowadays.These artifacts need a further look with new technology, not too say Wolter is doing this exactly, but I'm sure a geologist can tell whether a rock was carved yesterday in a garage or carved years ago and is highly weathered. Plus who knows what tests go on behind the scenes, as most shows are highly edited. Wolter makes bold claims and hypothesis but always does so with IF and Could statements. Which I see this author leaves out to further his own hypothesis about how fake Wolter and the show are.

BigMike
12/2/2013 02:51:12 am

"I'm sure a geologist can tell whether a rock was carved yesterday in a garage or carved years ago and is highly weathered."

Actually, you'd be surprised at how difficult that can actually be. Many hoaxer and fakers of antiquities are artists in their chosen (albeit immoral and usually criminal) fields. Some fakes have artificial patina and weathering so convincing that even some of the best experts (some of whom are also geologists) in the world are fooled. It is only by happenstance that they are proved to be fakes.

Real controversial artifacts are ones like the Ivory Pomegranate held in the Israel Museum that supposedly is proof of the existence of Solomon's Temple. Some claim this artifact is real based on investigation. Others see it as a fake since it was first brought to light by a known and convicted antiquities forger who has created a number of other very detailed forgeries (like the "Jesus" ossuary).

The fact is that people have been faking relics and antiquities since... well since people started valuing relics and antiquities. These fakes cam be very obvious... or they can be REALLY hard to disprove. That is unless you look at the context surrounding them. Is it reasonable to believe that an artifact of Hebrew origin is genuine when it's found in the middle of a bunch of other artifacts that a a person ADMITS to faking in an area where NO OTHER Hebrew artifacts have ever been found? Context is key. And that's what Jason is so good at helping us establish.

Gunn
12/2/2013 03:42:04 am

I agree, context is everything, which is why preserving objects in-situ is so vitally important.

Here's a "relic" I came across at a local museum recently, being touted as a Viking or Native American stove of sorts. It reminds me of Jacob's pillow in "American Unearthed," except that it is worked all the way through the stone (much harder than sandstone). The bottom line, though, is that the object was removed from an area with other apparently planted and aged, but modern-quarried rocks, which I found in the area and photographed. I need to let the museum know of my findings, but I want to go back and make an exact match to the spot the object was removed from, first, instead of just the general area. Context: an old but modern quarry is nearby where the item was found, and other quarried rocks have been moved to nearby isolated areas, too...for what reason, I do not know. Preparing a future practical joke?

Yes, the exact reasons for making hoaxes is difficult to determine sometimes. And then, I have to wonder if this rock may have been carved for actual use, though for use in more modern times? But it appears on the surface to have been a purposeful yet futuristic hoax, depending in part on lichen, perhaps, as icing on the hoax. Speculation. Things are suggested, but nothing is clear...which, I guess the museum is depending on.

http://www.hallmarkemporium.com/discoveries/id30.html

Varika
12/2/2013 01:10:38 pm

"That's what this show is about, and if you don't like it simply don't watch and bitch about something else."

Ahhh, the penultimate statement of the person who WANTS to believe.

Sir, do you really not understand how hypocritical it is to make such a statement? "This blog is about debunking wild claims. If you don't like it, simply don't read and bitch about something else."

Going back to your 20s and 30s "not as accurate" thing, I personally feel that if the tech available in the 1920s is capable of determining that something is a fake, it's REALLY OBVIOUSLY fake. I don't object to people taking a second look at these things, just to be sure, but that's NOT what Scot Wolter is doing. This isn't "Yay, we got new samples from the Shroud of Turn and we're doing testing!" This is "LOOK! IT IS THE SHROUD OF TURIN AND IT IS JESUS' BURIAL SHROUD AND THAT MEANS THAT JESUS WALKED ON THE MOON LAST WEEK!" Really, there's about as much logic to "there's a stone called the Stone of Destiny in Virginia that has NO CONNECTION WHATEVER to the Ark even in the Bible, so that means the Ark is in America!"

"Why would someone go through the trouble to create them, put them out in the middle of the dessert, and hope Scott Wolter stumbles upon 100 years later? "

They didn't. INVARIABLY, these hoaxes are placed just far enough from population centers or known archeological sites for the hoaxer to remain un-caught while making the fake and/or for the hoaxer to be reasonably sure someone will stumble across it. You'll notice that Scott Wolter did not "stumble upon" a single artifact; every single artifact he talks about he is either called by someone to come to, or he finds on a website on the Internet. They aren't being hidden for 100 years, they're just being VIEWED after 100 years, usually during most of which time they have been known and talked about. Nowhere does Scott Wolter claim even once that he's the first person to have discovered any of these things. Actually, usually there's some tale about how in the 1800s so-and-so found it, or it was produced in the early 20th century from such and such a place.

Even assuming they WERE hoping someone would find their stuff 100 years later, such a thing makes no LESS sense than "I buried a time capsule in the back yard with a label that says not to open before 2200!" which has been a school project for almost a century in and of itself.

For the specific hoax I suspect you're talking about--the lead artifacts that, despite what was *carved on them*, Wolter declared to be Templar artifacts--well, I would suspect they would pull a hoax that obvious for the same reasons my friends and I have occasionally talked about taking a gorilla costume out into the woods where Sasquatch hunters are "working" and making howling sounds at them: to screw with their minds and mock them mercilessly. Other reasons why people might hoax things are money (because antiquities are hella pricey), prestige, trying to stake a claim, or even just to piss people off. Heck, these days, there's even "I made it as a prop for a movie!" Movie props have actually made it out into the market, mistaken for real artifacts before. Every few episodes of Pawn Stars seems to have something like that on it--something that was made for advertising or as a prop that is much newer and less rare than it looks, but has been mistaken for what it was supposed to be mimicking.

"Wolter makes bold claims and hypothesis but always does so with IF and Could statements. Which I see this author leaves out to further his own hypothesis about how fake Wolter and the show are."

Wolter makes weak claims based on shaky logic, and using "if" and "could" are used to cover his arse in case of legal claims. And Jason's stating facts, not hypotheses. Wolter's show is fake, and there is a great deal of evidence to support this, including, as Jason has posted last season, folk complaining that the editing has twisted what they actually said into a lie after they gave an interview under false pretenses. (http://www.jasoncolavito.com/1/post/2013/02/scott-dawson-speaks-out-about-america-unearthed.html for one post about it, but I highly recommend surfing the archives for other details.) As for Wolter, the problem isn't that he's "fake," but rather that he is a little TOO "real," if you will. Jason's big problem with Wolter (and many of the rest of our problem with him, too!) is that Wolter actually seems to *believe* the incoherent ramblings he comes up with, uncritically and without question. I hate to say it, but after what passes for "logic" in his show, I have to question any and all of his conclusions as a "forensic geologist" prior to, well, his involvement with the Kensington Runestone, too. If he's this sloppy a thinker...

Reply
SusieQ222
1/11/2014 01:35:04 pm

The thing (stone..thought it was under the coronation stone at Westminster Abbey anyway) looked like a fake right away to me. It's sandstone & it's old & it was found in a creek and erosion surely would have worn it down over the years. Sandstone may not be common to the area of the fellow's farm, but it IS common to North America. To me it LOOKS like it WAS carved yesterday. The Native carving of the "ark" looks to me like a native rug on a loom. Hey! Maybe the Apollo astronauts took the ark & the stone to the moon? LOL We will never know...

Dave Lewis
12/2/2013 03:46:35 pm

The location of the Ethiopian ark is the Church of St Mary in Axum, Ethiopia. It is very heavily guarded by men with AK47s and heavier arms. It ain't going nowhere!

Reply
Cory
12/3/2013 12:05:20 am

I would grow my beard longer and tell them I am the second coming of Christ, they would let me right in.

Dr. Sheldon Cooper
12/5/2013 07:07:32 am

Obviously. Israeli Special Forces could never get past a bunch of Ethiopians...

Joyce D
12/8/2013 03:40:19 am

There is no doubt in my mind that inspired by Wolter's show, we will have a flood of artifacts that are being created today that will be "discovered" 100 0r 200 years from now.

Reply
Travis
12/8/2013 08:30:07 am

Cory, I saw a History Channel show (years ago when they actual talked about history) that there are many Ethiopian churches that have Ark replicas as part of their belief system. Only outsiders have claimed the Ethiopian Arks to be anything more than ceremonial representations.

Reply
Dr. Sheldon Cooper
12/8/2013 07:34:04 pm

Basically, it boils down to this:

Solomon met the Queen of Sheba according to the Tanakh. Ethiopians believe that "Sheba" is Ethiopia. There are many Ethiopians who follow Judaism (Beta Israel). Because of these traditions, when Ethiopia became Christian, many traditions, including the Ark of the Covenant, carried over.

They do believe that they are in possession of THE Ark as well. Or, at least, that is the claim laid forth. No one really knows because no one (other than the aforementioned blind/sick/cancer guy) has actually seen it. Again, that is the story laid forth.

Do they? I'm sure that they possess something, and obviously some people believe that the Ark is in the building as claimed. :-)

Mark
12/1/2013 01:47:15 pm

What I find interesting is that Wolter changes his mind after facing a road block to his theories. Last year the Knights/Freemasons/Sin Clair brought the holy grail and the covenant over. This year its a whole new twist. I loved watching this show last year, as well as reading your weekly reviews. The more you prove Wolter wrong Jason, the more I just really wonder about this show. I am treating it as a fictional show. All the content is so subjective, but obviously the show is biased. I applaud you Jason for siting the real facts. Next week at Denver should be interesting!

Reply
Will
12/1/2013 02:29:28 pm

I am starting to get that feeling to change channels because I am so embarrassed for the people (in this case Wolter) that are on the screen. Kind of like watching people stink on a talent search type show.

Reply
Dan
12/1/2013 02:44:39 pm

"Wolter next delivers an astounding sentence of multiple negatives to tell us that there is no reason not to believe that the Ark of the Covenant couldn’t have come to America. Wolter then bashes academics and skeptics (I guess that’s me) for the first time this season (it was a regular feature of season one), and concludes that the academics hate anything that breaks their paradigms so therefore we viewers, as good investigators, must embrace them as real. I didn’t really follow all that, and I got a bit lost in the convoluted grammar."

I think you're too kind to Wolter in this paragraph, Jason. This was one of those points in the show when I become fairly convinced that Wolter is mentally ill. He just starts talking and nothing makes any sense -- the obviously fake Decalogue Stone proves literally nothing that's he's spent the balance of the show trying to establish but yet the fact that it exists, that its in the US, well, that must mean SOMETHING. Therefore, the Ark is in the US. Egads.

Reply
Matthew Dentith link
12/1/2013 04:57:16 pm

There's another point I think is worth making: Wolter at no point talks about Jonathan Swift's love of satire. It's quite possible that Swift told whoever he gave the stone to it was the "Stone of Destiny" entirely because it would be an amusing thing to do. Certainly, as soon as I knew Swift was in the story, the whole "Stone of Destiny" turns up in America became even more unlikely than I originally envisaged.

Reply
StrongStyleFiction link
12/1/2013 05:20:10 pm

I don't think Wolter knows that Swift was a satirist. He hasn't even read the Bible, the primary source of everything we know about the Ark of the Covenant.

Let's assume for a minute that Swift was in possession of Jacob's Pillar, something that would be an incredible religious artifact. Why, in God's name, would he give it away as a wedding present.

"Hey Jimmy, happy tenth birthday! I brought you a present, it's the spear that was used to stab Christ on the cross. Now don't poke your eye out."

Reply
Coridan
12/1/2013 10:52:00 pm

For that matter, who gives someone a big rock as a wedding gift?

The Other J.
12/2/2013 08:43:28 pm

If he had such an object, and he gave it away to someone in America, and the Church of Ireland found out, Swift wouldn't have remained Dead of St. Patrick's.

Dr. Sheldon Cooper
12/5/2013 07:11:10 am

Heh. "I just found out Swift wanted to sell babies for food! And he thought people would just accept it!"

Though, I'm sure Swift would be handing tons of artifacts out as gifts. That would fit in perfectly.

The Other J.
12/2/2013 08:42:04 pm

Yes.

YES.

YES!

Reply
Joyce D.
12/8/2013 03:47:48 am

I never saw Wolter's explanation of the large hole in the center of the Stone of Destiny. It must have been part of a large machine with a tree fitting into the recess.

Reply
Carl
12/1/2013 08:55:36 pm

American Unearthed makes Dan Brown seem scholarly by comparison, and like Brown's output, AU is for entertainment purposes only. All kidding aside, hearing Scott Wolter babble
his way through the BS detector destroying "evidence" he presents as the programs host reminds me of sitting through viewings of any of the Lord Of The Rings movies, especially when the characters starting waxing poetic about this legend, or that myth.

Reply
DuncanIdaho
12/1/2013 09:24:20 pm

As someone who lives in Israel, reads/writes Hebrew, I observed the "Decalogue stone" is covered with can be best described as jibberish.. It's 100% a hoax, and yes I'm not religious I'm anti-theist a la Hitchins. This episode was depressing almost as if Scott's gone nutsnext episode has a dash of Alex jones NWO stuff yay. Uncovering lost pre Colombian history is one thing, this is just reach, I'm now convinced history left this channel with Robocop.

Reply
The Other J.
12/2/2013 08:46:09 pm

Can you tell us what the gibberish translates to in English? Even if it's gibberish, I'd like to know. Actually, particularly if it's gibberish.

Reply
Anirudh
12/1/2013 09:35:27 pm

I feel that every episode of this show is incomplete without this review. Thank you.
I keep watching just for laughs. and this weeks episode is really really stretched out. I mean the recaps were way too much

Reply
Jason Colavito link
12/1/2013 10:51:52 pm

Remember the apocryphal quote attributed to Lenin: A lie repeated often enough becomes the truth.

Reply
Drew
12/1/2013 11:05:38 pm

Chances of Glenn Beck being mentioned or featured on the Denver Airport episode? Or is that too much ego for one screen?

Reply
Shane
12/2/2013 01:39:24 am

Jason,

I really appreciate what you're doing here on your blog. I'm just a layman, and I'm afraid that I don't know a whole lot about most of these things, but am always interested to learn more. I suppose that if I was slightly less concerned with the truth, I could have easily become flummoxed by all the strange alternate views presented on these types of shows. Maybe true history is just too much trouble for some people, but since you're going through all the trouble of debunking these claims, the least I can do is read and learn. And I do:)

I always thought these shows were 'just for entertainment', but it seems to me that there is some underlying laziness of the mind attached to these programs. Almost something sinister and cynical in the way these people trod about on history to try and gain fame or money. I really think it's harmful.

I have to say that the only reason I watch America Unearthed is so that I can read your verbal dissection of the offending episode. I think a lot of people are in that camp. I would not watch the show without your critique of it. I hope you don't think that makes you responsible for my watching it, as your blog has inspired me to delve more deeply into true history. So, thanks!

I don't want to say anything too negative about Wolter, but I don't actually think he believes anything he says. He strikes me as some kind dead-eyed traveler, trying to trick a buck out of someone, a man of dubious virtue who has found his magic cash machine and will say anything to keep it running. I guess that was kind of negative:)

Reply
BigMike
12/2/2013 03:01:45 am

I'm in that camp with you! I only watch AU and AA because I know I'll be reading Jason's Blog afterwards. Hey, maybe we can make 'smores during the next episode! Better not snack on Oreos though... those are the work of the Templar/Free-Mason/Holy-Bloodline/Sinclair conspiracy. It says so right on the Kensington Rune Stone.

Reply
Shane Sullivan
12/2/2013 04:13:16 am

(Hey, another Shane!)

On the subject of that last paragraph, I'm also not so sure Wolter drinks his own Kool-Aid. Certainly a lot of fringe historians are snake-oil salesman just looking for book deals, while conspiracy nuts seem to find a sense of identity in their knowledge of special secrets. When someone is a fringe historian AND a conspiracy theorist, who knows?

Maybe getting paid to tell people he's special is just a perfect marriage for Scott Wolter.

Reply
The Other J.
12/2/2013 08:49:57 pm

A dead-eyed traveller of dubious virtue -- I like it. If you're a writer, save that description for a character.

Reply
jeanne stapleton link
12/2/2013 02:20:16 am

one thing that really concerns me ( besides the stupidity of his claims) is that his declarations to mistrust factual research, expertise and evidence REALLY plays into something this old lady has watched really explode over the last decade. The assault on reason and exchanging rational evidence, educated expertise is getting worse. It is the creating of the "my gut tells me" instead of facts and the cultivation of conspiracy theories. I see the effort to destroy trust in government, trust in institutions, in facts, in reason and expertise leading to trouble for America ( besides stupid voters)

Reply
The Other J.
12/2/2013 08:53:07 pm

The weird thing is he continually fails at actually proving what he sets out to prove, yet claims it's proved at the end of the episode. And he does this while telling his audience not to trust academics or experts, but to trust him WITHOUT any proof or evidence to back up his claims.

He's basically saying to believe him because he tells you to. What a dick.

Reply
B L
12/2/2013 03:18:34 am

I said it last season, but I think it bears repeating....If you have not seen the movie "Strange Wilderness", then stop what you are doing and go rent it now! Imagine what real-life must be like for Scott Wolter as you follow the movie's main character. You will laugh out loud. Instead of labeling Scott Wolter as a "real-life Indiana Jones" we should start a campaign to out him as a "real-life Peter from Strange Wilderness". Maybe then the fascination with this show will wear off.

Reply
JMP
12/2/2013 04:11:23 am

I turned the episode into a fun game with the stepkids. As we watched, I told them to listen for words like could, maybe, perhaps, if, allegedly, might, etc. they heard throughout the broadcast. By halfway through the broadcast we were all too tired to keep up. Suffice it to say that if there were an AU drinking game based on those words, everyone would have died from alcohol poisoning.

And my first thought was "Hey, so this whole episode is founded upon taking an uncited 11th century poem as a historical source? Really?"

Reply
Deb
12/2/2013 12:15:06 pm

As a student of history, I find the factual and logical improprieties of this show appalling. As a former television production professional, I find the writing and production quality of this show horrendous. The pace was terrible. It was repetitive. The shot of the man being turned into stone I think I counted being used 5 times. I guess they were trying to make use of their one special effects shot.
Honestly, the only reason I watch it is to punch holes in the ridiculous theories that are attempting to be passed as realistic possibilities. With the production levels and writing getting so horrible now, I'm not sure I can stomach it much longer. Now my visual and mental sensibilities are being assaulted at the same time. How much more can one person take?

Reply
Wilson
5/10/2015 08:39:29 am

I do wonder out of the ~800K audience how many watch for bemusement or other entertainment purposes versus how many either partially or wholly take it seriously?

Reply
Beau Davis
12/2/2013 12:15:23 pm

Hello, the ark of the covenant, if it did exist, is in Ethopia. They are people guarding a building and a person that will be dead soon because according to him, the ark of the covenant is in there. There is no way that it can be in North America. That is 1 billion percent impossible. The ancient Israelite would have moved it to a place that was more reachable back then. Beside, no one in the old world knew about the Americas. Connect the dots correctly, people.

Reply
Dr. Sheldon Cooper
12/2/2013 01:12:12 pm

Of course they knew about the Americas. The proof is that the Templars sailed to America, with the children of Jesus and Mary M. (the St. Sinclairs), had the cup that both held the wine at the last supper and caught his blood on the cross, the Ark of the Covenant, the entire Lost Tribe of Celtic-Welsh-Scottish-Irish-English Jews. How? The Ark of Noah. Simple. They all sailed here, made passionate love to the Lost Tribe of Native American Jews (that obviously came here first...probably on Minoan copper boats). All was well as they build the pyramids here, as well as circular clit stone churches (but not the outer circular part), wrote in Old Swedish runes on lead swords (because, you know, making swords out of a soft, heavy metal like lead makes so much sense). All was well until the other Native Americans showed up and killed all of them...making sure to destroy completely any evidence that they were there.

(For the humor impaired, this whole post is completely serious.)

Reply
Eric pcartman
12/2/2013 01:23:53 pm

Scott Wolter is a genius....my peaches this country was founded by people like dr wolter

Reply
The Other J.
12/2/2013 09:01:11 pm

Most of the problems have been more than adequately dealt with above -- I have nothing really to add but snark.

But as to the weird editing at Tara, note the cut after they mention the 19th century archaeological dig. They don't mention any other work, and that leaves the audience with the suggestion that archaeological work at the site ceased after the British Israelist dig.

It probably doesn't need to be said that's just not the case. Massive work was done in the 1950's, and it still goes on today. Muiris O'Sullivan from University College - Dublin published a monograph on recent work in 2005, and recently the government charged The Discovery Programme with developing a conservation plan for the site; The Discovery Programme has been there researching the site since 1991. To date no biblical artefacts have been recovered.

If Jonathan Swift were alive today, Scott Wolter would become a character in one of his satires.

Reply
Only Me
12/3/2013 06:21:34 am

Perhaps a Lilliputian with Brobdingnagian delusions of grandeur?

Reply
The Other J.
12/3/2013 09:55:48 am

Check out A Tale of a Tub, or its prelude, The Battel of the Books (yes, Battel was the original spelling on the frontispiece). They're about scholars who try to one-up each other by diving into seemingly-erudite digressions that go nowhere, and the way the scholars leave reason behind in their effort to attain cultural fame. Wolter seems straight out of that mold.

They're not easy reads -- they feel more post-modern than early modern. Swift adopts the position of one of the digressive academics and constantly slides into the same digressions and issues the narrator is accusing others of -- so they're hardly straightforward reads. They're more performative than informative texts. That can make them frustrating at first, but they're also brilliant.

severina
12/3/2013 12:00:30 am

...and if it was such a valuable relic why would the recipient then park it out in the woods?

It all sounds like a long-forgotten running joke.

"Damn that Swift saddling me with this stone chamberpot! I shall send him a crate of colonial skunks posthaste."

Reply
Susan
12/3/2013 08:58:38 am

In case anyone is interested, there's a great book about the search for the Ark of the Covenant at Tara (where, of course, it never existed) by Mairead Carew (called, fittingly enough, Tara and the Ark of the Covenant). For the history of the Stone of Destiny in Scotland (including the great story of some nationalists who once stole it) I'd also recommend Nick Aitchison's "Scotland's Stone of Destiny." Oh, and I am a specialist in Irish archaeology, and pretty much everything that Wolter said about Tara is wrong, distorted, or misleading. Nice deconstruction, Jason! I personally no longer have the patience (after going a few rounds with Ulf Erlingsson, who tried to argue that Atlantis was in Ireland...).

Reply
The Other J.
12/3/2013 09:48:14 am

You're a specialist in Irish archaeology? Can I ask what your focus is, or what you're current work is on? Are you working in Ireland now? I did my M.Phil at Trinity, and although I'm no specialist, it's an interest of mine. If you study 18th-to-early-20th century Irish literature and history, you can't escape archaeology and geology; uncovering and engaging ancient Ireland was a key component in trying to create a national identity in that era. (That doesn't mean they were always right about what they were engaging with, but that didn't change its importance.)

Reply
Watcher
12/3/2013 10:44:28 am

Thank you for your blog Jason. You've given us a lot of credible information that must have taken some time to collate and compose.

I've always loved the spider's web that is history - connecting the pieces of the cultures and events of humans on this planet to bring us up to the present moment.

In my lifetime I've seen many facts taught to me as a child be revised due to credible scientific evidence; the shifting of Earth's tectonic plates separating the once connected South America and Africa is one quick example, and the reason for the extinction of the dinosaurs and other animals due to the asteroid plummeting into the southern Caribbean Ocean for another.

Therefore, it was with high hopes that I watched the first episode of America Unearthed. By the second commercial, I was appalled at the complete lack of credibility in the show. Now, like so many others who have responded to your blog, I watch because I can't take my eyes off the train wreck that is America Unearthed. (Production quality included.)

While we here understand that what is presented is utter nonsense, I speculate that the majority of the viewers believe this man's fiction. I find that to be the greatest offense of the situation.

For America Unearthed to be presented as anything remotely resembling scientific and historical fact is doing serious injustice to anyone who is uninformed enough to believe the content. That is my real problem with this show.

Reply
joe
12/3/2013 01:16:32 pm

What a waste of prime air time. No evidence at all just lots of opinions, speculation and "could have beens". I watched this program a couple of times last year and couldn't make it through either episode. Now after wasting my time on this new season opener I can honestly say I will not be turning in for the rest of the season.

Reply
Steve K
12/3/2013 04:41:13 pm

High comedy as always. The show and this blog go together like PB & J. Thank you for your work.

Reply
joe
12/3/2013 04:49:43 pm

It's just entertainment, dummies. You people take all this mumbo jumbo too seriously. There is no ark, and even if a bunch of nomads made some stupid wooden container, it has no special powers. Religion, and all the so-called relics are nothing more than fairy tales done at a time when people knew close to nothing and everything was to be explained by the supernatural.

I will point out, Jason Colavito CLEARLY sees everything through the eyes of race. Somehow, EVERY review of his I have read has the word racist in it. Jason clearly does not like Scott Wolter, probably because he is Caucasian.

Come on Jason, cut whitey Scott a break. Every aspect of your life - the luxury you live, the medical breakthroughs, the technology, the moral and ethics we live by - ALL WHITE MAN'S CREATIONS. Why do you feel the need to belittle whites who made the world what it is today? You almost seem like you would be happier living in a mud hut in Africa picking bugs out of your tribe mates filthy hair?

Reply
B L
12/4/2013 02:52:35 am

Wow. Jason, I've been pretty resistant to your idea of occult racist themes being inherently woven into the pre-Columbian European American discovery narrative. But.....now I'm starting to see your point.

"Every aspect of your life - the luxury you live, the medical breakthroughs, the technology, the moral and ethics we live by - ALL WHITE MAN'S CREATIONS."?! WOW. Just WOW.

Reply
Jason Colavito link
12/4/2013 03:19:25 am

It's like that every day. You should see the foul, racist emails I get. It's awful.

To your point: There's a book called "Racism without Racists" that makes a great point: Even when the individuals involved aren't racists, they can still participate in structural racism through what Eduardo Bonilla-Silva calls "color-blind racism." This more subtle racism simply justifies current (or past) social practices as the inherent outcome of market forces, culture, history, and "natural" factors affecting all people.

Honestly, though, the anthropology of race and racism is one of my least favorite topics. I wish fringe historians would stop recycling old race-based claims so I didn't have to deal with it so much.

Gunn
12/4/2013 04:02:00 am

"This more subtle racism simply justifies current (or past) social practices as the inherent outcome of market forces, culture, history, and "natural" factors affecting all people."

Justifies, or recognizes? It seems, according to this view, like simply recognizing an historical input or outcome may result in charges of justification...by extrapolation, charges of bias or luke-warm racism.

I'm fascinated by the true account of the Native American who, along with several other East Coast residents, was taken captive to be sold as slaves in Spain...by British sailors. He escaped, made his way to England, and then back to America...all before Jamestown and the 1st Thanksgiving, etc. He ended up helping the Colony survive, even though he had returned to find that all his family had been cut down by disease...brought by Europeans.

There is no justification for such impure human actions, only historical recognition. This is truly dancing around the rim of racism, and one could either fall in or out. I see Jason as still dancing a fine jig between justification and recognition. Now we see darkly...clarity is needed. What are the charges, exactly?

Gunn
12/4/2013 05:02:05 am

I just had an a sudden realization that there is a twist of irony for you in all this, Jason. Consider that hapless, Swedish Olaf Ohman found the Swedish KRS--an insult to overcome, just as you must overcome, or attempt to overcome, a similar fate of coincidence...you, having an obviously Italian name, in the role of a Christopher Columbus defender. We are talking about holding the line, of course, that imaginary pre-Columbus/post-Columbus line of history. See the irony? You are a defender of something ethnic, as was poor Olaf.

You are in somewhat of an awkward position. In other words, some folks may wonder about your zeal, and whether it could possibly be misplaced in the scheme of things. Or am I playing too much the blog psychologist? Here's the comical chant: "Hold the line! Hold the line! Hold the line!" And then this gets confused with being anti-white, meaning anti-pre-Columbus white. So, when you scoff at white Vikings, you are scoffing at white history, even that history that likely pre-dates the voyages of Columbus. So, some of those charging racism against you may see you as being mean and nasty towards even the idea of pre-Columbus whites in America. You could be perceived as an Italian defending an Italian cause, just as Olaf was perceived as a Swede defending a Swedish cause (his runestone). Welcome to that exclusive, painful club. In a way, you are swimming upstream, which is the resistance you're feeling.

Jason Colavito link
12/4/2013 05:28:47 am

I don't understand your rambling post, Gunn. Who is denying that the Vikings were in America? Just because many people don't believe they were in your particular hometown doesn't translate into denying they ever set foot in America.

Dr. Sheldon Cooper
12/5/2013 07:28:51 am

Yeah...Columbus...Italian...sure. He was a Spaniard.

(And, for the record, I, too, am of Italian extraction. No axe to grind here.)

Anyway, Jason has repeatedly stated that Vikings were here before. Plus, you know, the Native Peoples who were here before.

Gunn
12/5/2013 08:13:42 am

Rambling post? Yeah, rambling in a tighter and tighter circle, to an identifiable you. I thought you wanted to be in the spot-light? I was explaining why you might be getting the negative attention you described so pitiably.

Before, there was a need to distinguish between America and North America in the hullabaloo...I'm glad you now at least see the Vikings visiting America. Next, Minnesota. Hang in there, Jason. If necessary, pretend that you are a fine Nordic fellow!

By the way, isn't it strange that this "New Jerusalem" attempt would appear to have been in the very middle of North America? Maybe this is why some TV dignitaries think in terms of Templars coming here...because of the associated sacred geometry. One can't help wondering why the collateral evidences seem to have sprung up from this region...oh, I'm not talking about my back yard, I'm talking about the areas where the preponderance of evidence comes from. Need I say more?

Here's the question: Why would Europeans come to the middle of North America during the medieval period? So far, speaking for myself, I can only think of one thing: sacred geometry, that is, a proposed new nation springing from the center, not the edge, of a "newly discovered" continent. How powerful can coincidence be, otherwise? Maybe Scott and Alan are right on this one....

Jason Colavito link
12/5/2013 08:59:32 am

I was referring to the continent, not the country Gunn.

Gunn
12/5/2013 01:16:10 pm

In that case, I guess the "uh-oh" was right. I thought maybe you were confusing America with North America, and I thought I might as well run with it...but you did catch it. Well done!

I was just thinking this thing Wolter is involved in might not be so bad as you think. Think of all these visitors you are able to set straight, as the result of being directed here by America Unearthed, via Google. In other words, the persuaded can become the un-persuaded, finally obtaining enlightenment.

Now I'm seeing this as a good social Team Effort between you and Wolter. He puts on the bait and helps set the hook, and then you take over with the final big net, proclaiming truth to history newbies. So then, this is not all bad, especially when one is able to follow a leveling pool of gravy.

All aboard the Gravy Train! Ha! Ha! Everyone wins with Scott in full control of the wheel house.... Did someone say genius?

Lucius
12/4/2013 12:42:08 pm

I agree that European culture has developed te technology, govt, and various institutions including rul of law and the idea of natural rights that have brought great improvements to the human race. But they also developed such horrible ideas lie central banks, total war, communism, and killing on a massive scale.

Reply
Dr. Sheldon Cooper
12/5/2013 07:38:28 am

Lucius...derived from Lucifer...the light bringer...folks, we have an Illuminati shill here. [For the Scott Lovers: See how easy it is?]

Please define what is "European Culture." Feudalism? Democracy? Republicanism? Fascism?

Inventing gunpowder? Pasta? Beer? Wine?

Killing on a massive scale? Yeah, because the tribes that lived near the Aztecs joined Cortes because they thought he was the reincarnation of Quetzalcoatl, not because they were tired of having their people slaughtered by the Aztecs.

Natural Rights? Read what the founders of this country wrote regarding their views of natural rights and the Native Peoples.

There's a happy medium between the Eurocentric view and the Anti-European view espoused by those on the other side.

joe
12/3/2013 05:00:07 pm

Holy crap.

Google "is Jason colavito a racist"

It seems there are DOZENS of returns for Jason and the use of the word racism.

I wonder who Jason voted for, haha. Jason plays the racism card in EVERY review involving Scott Wolter. No wonder A&E and others threatened to litigate against him. Why does Jason hate Scott Wolter? Could it be racism against the white Scott Wolter? Or is Jason Colavito, a person whose name is known to pretty much nobody, jealous of the incredible success of the show America Unearthed?

Not sure, but I'll bet Scott Wolter loves Jason Colavito since all he does is inadvertently promote Scott's show.

Reply
Only Me
12/3/2013 07:21:50 pm

Well stop the presses!

Congratulations, you've seen firsthand that Google will produce results based on key words, in this case; Jason, Colavito and racist. Guess what? I got the same results typing "Is Scott Wolter a racist"...that's how search engines work. What is your point?

See, first you skewer the show for being a waste of air time, then you tell those who voiced their opinions about its shortcomings that it's just entertainment, not to take seriously. You follow with an attack on religion, then, you take Jason to task by asserting he's a racist and hates Scott because he's white.

By the way, go to www.blackinventions101.com, to see all the everyday conveniences that blacks contributed to *everybody's* life...yours included. So much for that personal belief of yours...you know, the one where you're informed, educated and one of those white Europeans that dominate the world and probably always will?

Reply
The Other J.
12/3/2013 10:39:51 pm

I like porches. Porches are big here in the south -- they help keep houses cooler in the summer. They weren't really a thing in Europe, and didn't become a thing in the colonies until the 18th century -- and in America, they came from West Africa. Because West Africans made their own porches, and slave owners adopted that architectural style from the houses their slaves built.

And peanut butter. I loves me some peanut butter and honey. You can put it on a tortilla and make it into a roll-up. Thanks George Washington Carver!

And jazz music. I played trombone, bass trombone and bass guitar in jazz bands in high school and college. I've DJ'd jazz music and funk on the radio. That wasn't invented by white people (but if you dig into the history, they helped -- some did. But they were usually poor and had about the same rights as non-whites.)

And participatory democracy. French trappers sent letters back to France describing how native tribes in the Upper Midwest shared power and chose and deposed their chiefs. Thinkers like Jean-Jacques Rousseau were influenced by these letters, and Rousseau was reading them when he designed his version of the social contract. Rousseau's social contract in turn influenced Thomas Jefferson when he wrote the Declaration of Independence outlining how power should be shared between a government and the governed. Thanks native Americans!

And the world we live in today is profoundly influenced by Bruce Lee. Kung-fu movies, MMA, the superhero sidekick, fight scenes in movies and television, and even the idea of physical training -- all forged or improved by a Chinese immigrant.

There's also maize. That wasn't invented by white people; native Americans cultivated corn and introduced that to the world. Potatoes, too. I can honestly say if it wasn't for potatoes, my family may never have been able to immigrate to the New World in the first place. (Of course it was because the potato crop failed, but that's beside the point.)

I'm also a big fan of writing, and the origins of all western alphabets begin in the Middle East with the first Phoenician script, which simplified and abstracted Egyptian hieroglyphs. That didn't come from Europe.

Bathing's also kind of a big thing in our world. Much of our current bathing practices come from India, who introduced them to white people when the British went there. Even the word "shampoo" comes from India.

I'm also a big fan of my wife, and she's not white. Whoever invented her played a huge role in my world.

Honestly, it isn't too tough to come up with ways non-white people helped create the world we live in today.

Shane Sullivan
12/4/2013 06:52:48 am

Since medical breakthroughs were brought up, Daniel Hale Williams should probably be mentioned.

(Other J, shut the front door! You played jazz? *I* play jazz! Drums.)

The Other J.
12/4/2013 09:46:08 am

Heh. I *played* jazz. Now I'm better at hitting play. Is jazz your gig?

Shane Sullivan
12/4/2013 12:00:56 pm

Nowadays it's more of a hobby. See, I've always covered a lot of old pop, and that used to include Nat King Cole, Tony Bennett and the like, but in the last few years, that audience has started to dwindle. These days, catering to the older crowd means Ricky Nelson, Doo-Wop--even the Beatles.

Currently, even the octogenarian demographic often prefers Frankie Lymon to the Rat Pack.

SilverWolf
12/3/2013 08:46:53 pm

Ark of the Covenant in America??? What a bunch of Rot and Rancidness.

1. The Irish story is that Jeremiah took Teia Tephi ,the daughter of the last king of Judea Zedekiah who was by then a prisoner of Nebuchadnezzar and had his eyes put out after his sons were killed in front of him and died like a dog in a prison. Where this Rock Tumbler fellow got Egypt into the story is beyond me. As any Irishman worth his blarney and he will tell you the story of Tial Fail exactly as I posted.


2. The Stone of Destiny was supposed to be the coronation stone that was used by the Scottish to crown their Kings on and then stolen by the British and placed under the coronation chair. It was stolen by some Univ Students were upon it ended up being broken into two pieces which were then reattached with Iron.
A couple years back the Stone of Scone as it was also called also Lia Fail, was returned with great fanfare to Scotland with an agreement it can be borrowed back for coronations.
Some say that the current Coronation Stone, is not the one that originally was stolen from the Scottish and is a fake. The jury is out on that one.

2. The Hebrew on that little block in the box with the 10 commandments on it is a fraud. It is obviously written in the more Modern Block Hebrew of the Second Temple era and not in the Phoenician script as you would find in the Samaritan Pentateuch.

Apparently this geologist guy thinks everyone else is stupid. One look at the inscription of the Hebrew proved right away it was a con job or tourist trinket from some bazaar in Jerusalem.

And now the Ark maybe in the Grand Canyon. ROFLMAO!!! Is there no end to this Bullshoot? Dam they should call the History Channel, the Dysentery Channel cause it gives intelligent people a sick feeling in their guts just watching even a minute of it.

Reply
Troy Dickerson
12/4/2013 02:48:51 am

Please understand there is no theory in a map..so with that said : please chk out my channel that shows the solid scientific evidence of truth .. www.youtube.com/user/ancientcartography here you will see where the temple is , commandments were put, solomon's house and throne,ect.. this is no BS..America was upper egypt..the land given to Jacob was TENN...so now go see the facts..I have studied maps 35yrs...no theory in a map...

Reply
GOD
12/4/2013 10:50:50 am

Sounds like Jason is jealous he does not have his own show.

Reply
Waitaminute
12/4/2013 07:21:47 pm

Scott, is that you...?

So now Scott Wolter is calling himself God?

Reply
Obamanation
12/4/2013 12:50:12 pm

America unearthed is a great show. I go to weekly show discussions on the show sponsored by my local library. Like a book club. Wolter is a genius.

Now get on my web site so we get lots of hits...it is sort of working now

Reply
Jesse Pinkman
12/4/2013 03:41:35 pm

Twaughthammer forever, Yo!

Reply
Jim Courter
12/4/2013 04:03:34 pm

You make mention that the petroglyph of the "ark" looks like a loom for weaving blankets. I know that you got that information from a website that states as much. If you ever go to the site, there are four different "offical" explainations for what it could be. They range from a migration symbol to clan marking (none of which say "blanket" by the way). The other petroglyphs that show a cross and another "box" are known fakes carved by some tourist in the late 1800s to early 1900s (these were examined by Scott Wolter while we were filming the segment, but for some reason those conclusions were not included). The "ark" symbol also appears in the Observsation Tower located on the east rim of the Grand Canyon. A local Navajo artist was chosen to recreate significant petroglyphs from the area when it was built in 1932. The "ark" petroglyph is one of them. I do like how you make conclusions without any proof nor even visiting the site for your self. It must be easy to make statements from the comfort of your computer at home.

Reply
Only Me
12/4/2013 05:54:16 pm

Since you pointed out Mary J's lack of using of spell check, may I point out you're mistake in not using it as well?

Observation, instead of Observsation.

Reply
Jason Colavito link
12/5/2013 12:33:56 pm

So, you're saying that the petroglyph isn't a "new" discovery as Wolter pretended and actually has academic explanations that he pretended didn't exist.

I didn't make any conclusions... I just offered "possibilities".... no, wait, that's what Scott Wolter does!

Reply
steve
12/4/2013 04:06:26 pm

I did not read all comments, but the "ten commandments" could not have been produced by Jewish believers. The commandment to make no graven image was very severely observed. In putting it on the stone with the ten commandments they would be breaking them. Just an observation from a layman.

Reply
Dr. Sheldon Cooper
12/5/2013 08:04:56 am

Actually...there is some debate over what exactly the "ten commandments" actually are. Not just the Catholic v. Protestant versions, but the Jewish people actually have a different version than the Christian version. (Good summary: http://www.jewfaq.org/10.htm). IF it was written by Jewish people, it would likely not mesh up with the Protestant or Catholic ones. Just saying...

As far as the "no graven images" prohibition...

After Yahweh told Moisha not to make any graven images, he tells Moisha to make a couple of cherubim for his golden suitcase.

But remember, Yahweh never changes his mind (and let's ignore the fact that if "he" is a "he", why bother with a female...maybe it really was "Adam and Steve").

Reply
Only Human link
12/4/2013 04:43:07 pm

It amazes me how so many people are certain that somebody is wrong yet nobody can prove that anything in the bible is right or even true for that matter. I don't believe any of Wolters theories are true OR untrue. I believe he presents a lot of decent evidence to his theories, and yes, some evidence he presents is sometimes very far reaching and questionable at best. I'd be willing to bet everyone including myself here hasn't even done a fraction of the work he's done yet we are so certain that everything he claims is wrong and just plain silly. Why is it then when anyone has an "alternative theory" to anything there are always the stalwarts to the mainstream?? Why wouldn't we be open to new ideas and debating theories rather trying to "debunk" them? There is evidence to debunk many claims of the bible itself which actually contradicts itself within its own texts. Somebody stated a profound quotation on here that a lie eventually becomes the truth the more people believe it. That can be a dangerous quotation to state as it could technically be applied to the bible and religion in a debate. Mr. Colavito seems like he is more interested in debunking, if that's even possible on a topic of religion, aliens or the bible, than he is open to new ideas, alternative theories, or just being open minded in general. Most of his work that I've managed to read seems almost entirely focused on debunking theories which seems to be an oxymoron in itself. Definitively speaking, you can't actually "debunk" a "theory." In topics like this you are only dealing with evidence but evidence is not fact. Evidence that can disprove or prove either way but evidence does not automatically make anything fact. I for one enjoy Ancient Aliens and America Unearthed and I totally support what both shows are doing including Scott Wolter. That doesn't mean I believe any of it but it makes me think and opens up my mind to new avenues of thinking, making me want to do my own investigating and research. Doesn't mean I'll come to the same conclusion as either of the shows but isn't that what it's really all about? I'd like to add though, that Mr. Colavito is an intelligent and knowledgable and respected man from what I researched about him for those who are ridiculing his critiques of Scott Wolter.

Reply
Only Me
12/4/2013 06:24:36 pm

I don't think you understand the nature of evidence. You said that you can't debunk a theory, because evidence is not fact. Wrong. I can theorize that I can drive a sixteen penny nail into a two-by-four by staring at it, but if repeated experiments show that it can't be done, then the evidence (the results of the experiments), prove that it's a fact that staring at the nail will not drive it into the board.

You further state that evidence can prove or disprove, but doesn't automatically make anything a fact. Wrong again. Water contains oxygen, but organisms without gills cannot process it the same as breathing air. If this were not a fact, then why do people drown? The evidence is the biological adaptation of gills, and the autopsy reports showing the presence of water in a drowning victim's lungs.

As to "alternative" theories, if the evidence supported and validated them, they would no longer be "alternative". They would be accepted fact, and therefore, part of the "mainstream" those chafing stalwarts defend.

This is why it's easy to say that a proponent of alternative theories is wrong. We have irrefutable proof that ancient cultures built some of the most iconic monuments still in existence. There has been no such thing with AAT.

The same can be said of Scott Wolter. He claims that Exxon and ReMax utilized Templar crosses in their logos, and that these same symbols are found on the face of the Oreo. He's also said the same of the Nova Scotia flag, even though it has the wrong color scheme. In this case, there is no evidence at all to support/validate his theory; ergo, debunked!

I hope this helps your understanding of the importance of evidence.

Reply
Only Human link
12/4/2013 06:53:33 pm

Thanks....you just proved my point to those who will understand.

Only Me
12/4/2013 08:34:05 pm

Do enlighten me, please. What *is* your point?

You made two assertions: evidence doesn't make something a fact, and theories (technically speaking, hypotheses) can't be debunked. I was able to show that thinking to be flawed, using plain examples and logic.

At this point, there's no need to be open-minded toward new ideas or conduct any investigations and research. You've single-handedly eliminated one of the core tenets to science in general. Based on your assertions, science is false, so why bother?

The Other J.
12/4/2013 08:06:01 pm

If evidence isn't fact, I was taught wrong and I've been teaching others wrong. Evidence rests on itself -- it needs no other support, argument, appeal, or anything else to prove its veracity, and it's not really challengeable. I drank all of my tea. The evidence? My cup is empty. Someone telling me my cup is really full or not empty of tea will have a hard time proving that based on the evidence -- the fact that my cup is empty.

Reasons rest on evidence; you can only accept a reason if the evidence is strong enough to support it (or if you don't really care about strong evidence and just want to entertain the thought or believe it). If someone demanded you give them $1000 to remove the horn from the back of your head, you'd probably want some good evidence before shelling out the dough.

A reason is used to back up a claim, but the reason is only as good as the evidence used to support it. If the evidence isn't self-evident and not challengeable, it's not good evidence for that reason, and the reason should probably be reconsidered -- just repeating it won't make it more true.

From what I've seen in America Unearthed, Wolter presents reasons, but lacks the evidence to actually support the reasons he presents. After testing some avenues, he usually drops a potential line of argument for his thesis and moves on to something else -- the Hill of Tara to Swift's joke stone in Virginia, the Anasazi ark of the covenant. They can't all be true, and if there isn't sufficient evidence -- facts supporting -- the reasons he presents for any of his arguments, there isn't much reason to accept his argument, even if he repeats it as somehow proved at the end of an episode.

Reply
Cory
12/5/2013 01:36:05 am

So you're saying our knowledge of history is all fact? Sorry, but just because you claimed to drink all the tea doesn't actually support evidence that you did. You could have spilt some! Some reasoning is based off little evidence left behind by a particular civilization. Theory's are created by this evidence, but having little evidence means it's a partial fact and there's more to the story. The "ark" is one of those stories which people are debunking with more "stories." Has the "ark" ever been found? No = fact. Did the "ark" ever exist? Who knows, but it's funny people are debunking its location when nobody truly knows if it exists!

The Other J.
12/5/2013 08:48:17 am

"So you're saying our knowledge of history is all fact?"

No, I'm saying that we can really only be sure of our reasons based on the facts available to back them up. There may be a preponderance of evidence (facts) to back something up, in which case it can generally be accepted -- there is overwhelming evidence that a presidential election occurred in the U.S. in 2012; Pompeii was almost entirely destroyed by a volcano; Neanderthals inhabited Europe and the Middle East and Central Asia.

When there isn't enough evidence to back up the reasons, the argument sits in the realm of hypothesis -- it needs testing and more evidence to prove it. To accept it as fact just isn't good research, or science, or smart. What if people just accepted stem cell therapy as legit for a certain condition before it was proved or the dangers of a therapy had been tested? That's happening in Eastern Europe and Asia, where people with neurodegenerative conditions go to seek help through untested therapies that are still still being studied. The people lose thousands, risk other health complications, and don't get over their condition. What's worse, if they go off their current therapies to try the new one, they may risk their lives. You also see this sort of thing all the time in physics today; just because the Higgs boson appeared to exist, for decades it remained at the theoretical level until an experiment finally proved it was real in 2012. Or, to make it more mundane, a city council wouldn't allow a bridge to be built unless it met certain standards, and the construction has to be tested in order to meet those standards. If the evidence from the tests shows those standards are unmet, the bridge either won't be built or the construction will be altered in order to meet code. To argue that the evidence is just a possibility and the bridge might hold up is negligent, and if the bridge collapsed the people who allowed it to go forward end up in court.

As for the ark, Wolter didn't even present enough evidence to consider if the claim "the ark is in America" is even worth following up, even if you think it's an interesting idea to entertain. In every case he traced -- none of which he proved -- the evidence presented doesn't stand up to basic scrutiny that most people don't need to leave their homes to find. These were all covered above, but here's a quick breakdown:

-----

The Hill of Tara story: The evidence comes from a fictional poem written in the 19th century. That's not ancient, and it's not history. If fiction is the standard of evidence for historical fact, the next thing I want Wolter looking for is the Jabberwocky.

-----

The stone Swift supposedly sent to Virginia: The sandstone Wolter claims could be from Israel is also present in that area of Virginia, and all over the world -- it's pretty common. It's also extremely unlikely Swift would have had access to such a relic since the Catholic church controlled St. Patrick's in Dublin for almost 400 years prior to the Protestant church, and such a relic would have been sent to the Vatican where it would be safer. Plus Swift was a notorious satirist and joker -- if he did send that guy anything, it's more likely he said it was something it wasn't as a gag, rather than risk losing his position as one of the more powerful political figures in Dublin at the time (he eventually went mad trying to help the homeless and starving in Dublin).

-----

The artifact in Ohio has grind marks on the back (which Wolter didn't show) and displays the wrong kind of script for the time period it's meant to be from (plus it's unlikely Jews back then wouldn't be carving pictures of holy people -- "thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image"). Besides, it appeared in the same place after a previous artifact was found that was clearly a hoax; the next one, found shortly after, fixed all the problems skeptics had with the first. It's almost as if someone who had access to a recent Hebrew dictionary made a new "artifact" that didn't have the problems the skeptics found with the first one. Either that, or the ancient Hebrews who made it had access to a Hebrew grammar book that showed how their script would evolve, and they used the future script. Which seems more likely?

-----

As for the Anasazi petroglyph, as I understand it there are other similar images that are identified as looms, and Wolter never bothered to ask any tribes people what they had to say about it. His neglecting the tribe is enough to not accept his claim because he's demonstrating he's not doing due diligence -- a court would never pass judgment without questioning witnesses. We could compare that glyph to all the other box-looking glyphs from the area all we want, but without checking with the tribe, that's pointless. It's like assuming a word in Chinese means the same as a similar-sounding word in English because they sound the same, but not bothering to check with a native Chinese speaker what the word actually mea

The Other J.
12/5/2013 08:51:21 am

(cont.) what the word actually means in their language, or how the word may have evolved. (Fun English Fact: The word "with" used to also mean "against" in Anglo-Saxon.)

-----

None of what he presented is not unchallengeable, and was all easily countered. If your evidence can't stand up to counter-arguments and testing, it's not good evidence, or at least isn't the right evidence for the reasons being presented. Even if he claimed the Virginia stone was a gag, it's more believable based on Swift's track record, but it's still not acceptable unless and until records could be found showing such a thing. It might just as well be something a gentleman Virginia farmer who was into Swift carved, and he spread the story himself.

And even if I spilt some tea, there's still no tea left in my cup. Besides, I washed the cup.

Cory
12/5/2013 01:01:47 am

Good post only human. This is the mindset to have when dealing with certain topics such as history.

Reply
Only Human link
12/5/2013 04:01:29 am

Because all the analogies being presented are whimsical and clearly off what is actually being presented. If you saw a YouTube video of a man driving a sixteen penny nail into a 2x4 by staring it that then that means his evidence is fact? Some marine life do not have gills yet are able to breath air both on land and sea. A dolphin's natural habit is in the ocean yet they can't breath underwater. My cup is empty of tea therefore it's a fact I drank it? Did you give it to somebody else? Did you really have any tea at all? Did you dump it out? There's mounting evidence that O.J. Killed his wife yet not one fact has been found to support it. There's mounting evidence that J.F.K. Was killed by a conspiracy yet not one fact has been found to support it. Facts support reasons, not evidence. Also where is it assumed that I'm a proponent of alternative theories when I clearly stated I didn't believe nor disbelieve? The notion and conclusion that my assertions indicates science is false is just silly. That's exactly my point too. And to actually have a "point" where nothing should be considered unless there is a need is very narrow thinking. On the flip side, there is truth to your rebuttals. Conceding that fact now probably confuses everyone which is why I said those who really took the time to not only just read my post but to understand what I'm stating would get it before responding.

Only Me
12/5/2013 06:49:55 am

Now you're just being disingenuous.

My nail example clearly stated the use of experimentation, a key element to proving or disproving a hypothesis. You're seriously going to use a hypothetical YouTube video as a counter-argument?

Dolphins? What do they have to do with my second example? I was talking about the ability to extract oxygen from water through gills, something dolphins can't do.

Are you always going to take things out of context when your position is weak? I didn't say you were a proponent of alternative theories. I gave a general statement that applied to supporters of AAT and to alternative history, specifically, if their evidence/lack of evidence can't support their favored ideas, then those ideas are falsified.

As to O.J. and JFK, are you saying you weren't aware that evidence, like facts, can be twisted and abused by those with an agenda in mind? If not, then you need to pay closer attention to shows like Ancient Aliens and America Unearthed. They do this all the time.

Only Human link
12/5/2013 07:25:25 am

Let me break the rebuttals here for a moment...

Why are you taking these as personal attacks? I've noticed some of your responses on here and you have made snarky and sarcastic comments to anyone that differed from your opinion. Now your calling me disingenuous, "taking things out of context because I know I have a weak position", I need to pay closer attention to twisted facts and evidence....I guess your assuming I'm gullible and believe everything I read or hear. What gets me is is that you seem to state your opinions is if they are facts, but everything on here really boils down to opinions. I have not once called you anything, accused you of being anything or doubted your competence or intelligence. So I sincerely apologize if I somehow offended you. I was merely debating the topic so I digress...

Only Me link
12/5/2013 08:06:14 am

It seems that there is an unintentional misunderstanding.

I haven't taken your responses as personal attacks. You obviously haven't engaged in such tactics. Nor do I find you gullible. If my words seem snarky and sarcastic, I also apologize.

I simply find it troubling that fringe ideas easily take established facts and any available evidence and attempt to remold them into a narrative that is more palatable to those who believe that they are "special" in some way, because they find the truth unsatisfactory.

I sought to address your previous assertions about evidence and theories, and you said they were "whimsical and clearly off what is actually being presented". I simply disagree. Yes, facts support reasons, but evidence supports facts.

Does the Ark exist? No one knows, but to make the leaps of logic Wolter does, to state that it is in America, is preposterous. He's done this before, with the Templars, the Holy Grail and even a holy bloodline descended from Jesus and Mary Magdalene. The production company purposely edits any dissenting opinion from his "guests", just to make his assumptions appear correct.

History in general, and indigenous cultures specifically, should not be grist for the mill, just for fame and profit margins.

Only Human
12/5/2013 08:26:16 am

Oh good. That actually makes me feel better. I'd like to clarify that the "whimsical off topic" comment was about the analogies being used and not your comment about evidence which I agree with. I may have worded that wrong. And I also understand and even agree with your statement about fringe theories. My original point was that it seems everyone is always so resolute and resolved to dismiss anyone who has a different idea that goes against the traditional view and are close minded to anything else. Specifically on the topics of religion, aliens, history or archeology. Galileo for example. Maybe that's not the best analogy either but I think you get what I'm trying to say.

Dan
12/5/2013 04:32:55 am

You make about as much sense as Scott Wolter deciding that the Ark is in the US because he has found that a fake Hebrew relic has some evidence of aging.

Reply
Only Human
12/5/2013 04:40:17 am

Haha! Yet another one...

Reply
Only Me
12/5/2013 07:41:31 am

By the way, were you able to prove that the Hebrew relic was a fake? Did I miss a follow up that proved it to be so?

And as for the Ark...NO! I do not believe it is in America. First, I have doubts that it even exists anymore, second, if it does, I believe it would be hidden somewhere underneath the Temple Mount as, in my OPINION, it is the most logical place. However I am open to anyone's theory or idea.

Reply
Only Me
12/5/2013 08:13:37 am

So, "Only Me", I'm curious as to who you are. Until now, I thought I was the only one with that pseudonym.

Only Human
12/5/2013 08:42:54 am

No, sorry, that's me. I guess I typed Only Me right after I got done addressing you above, my apologies. What's funny is that I thought I chose an original name and didn't realize until after my first post on here that there was somebody named Only Me. Seriously, it wasn't a knock on your name! See? We think alike after all! Haha...

Only Me
12/5/2013 09:14:08 am

Thank God! I thought my inner child, who I traded for a Twinkie in third grade, had found me. That's a relief.

Only Human
12/5/2013 09:21:40 am

Maybe I am your inner child. Can you prove that I'm not?? And you "claim" you traded it for a Twinkie but where is your evidence to support the fact that it was a Twinkie?? Can you argue that the Twinkie you supposedly traded even existed??

Only Me
12/5/2013 10:40:35 am

Interesting question about the Twinkie. The package it came in said it was, so, there's that bit of evidence. It was also golden, oblong and cream-filled, but, that may be inconclusive.

I *do* know that all the psychokinetic energy in the New York area, during a spike in activity, would produce a Twinkie 35 feet long, weighing approximately 600 pounds. I heard it from Ghostbusters.

Only Human
12/5/2013 10:55:48 am

Well if you heard it from Ghostbusters then it has to be true. I have no grounds for a rebuke after that.

Mick link
12/5/2013 04:40:46 am

The map arrows drove me crazy. The global graphics of the various locations connected by one-directional arrows was an illustrative logical fallacy implying causation and direction where there was none

Reply
Um
12/5/2013 05:07:02 am

Maybe the arrows were supposed to indicate Scott's travels, like in Raiders of the Lost Ark. They should have faded in a shot of some old cargo plane.

Reply
Only Human
12/5/2013 07:48:00 am

I agree. I think there are those who are reading too much into the map. I think it's only there for an effect for the show just to merely show where Wolter had been or traveling to. If Wolter is using it in the way that Mick described than I also agree it's a gross misdirection.

Rebecca Thompson
12/5/2013 07:56:06 am

Honestly, the only thing more pathetic than Scott Wolter wasting his life and all the money on these ridiculous persuits, is YOU wasting your life bashing him and calling it critiquing it all. Seriously, get a life and/or grow up. Wow... can't believe this is the garbage on the internet, or that you people actually spend your lives doing this...

What is the point? Do YOU have a show on the History Channel or are you not getting the attention you so obviously are begging for? And are jealous of Scott Wolter getting.

Get lives ppl.

Reply
Dan
12/5/2013 08:12:49 am

You obviously fail to appreciate the irony of your own post in this forum.

Reply
Dr. Sheldon Cooper
12/5/2013 08:15:25 am

I always find it hilarious when someone posts how people need to "get a life" and stop posting.

Reply
Only Human
12/5/2013 08:29:34 am

Dan and Dr Sheldon said exactly what I was thinking. See?? We just proved now that mind reading is real !!

Dr. Sheldon Cooper
12/8/2013 06:50:37 am

LOL

Kim
12/5/2013 09:19:06 am

If the comments on the History Channel facebook are any indication, it would appear that this episode of America Unearthed has really bombed!!!

Reply
JayR link
12/5/2013 10:19:25 am

My 15 year old son asked me why I watch America Unearthed as he understands most of Mr. Wolter's conclusions are totally off the wall. I explained to him that I watch the show for the entertainment value and to see if Mr. Wolter will actually reveal any incontrovertible evidence of a European presence in America prior to 1492.

I had written Mr. Wolter about some research I had done regarding a magnificent lighthouse that had been constructed near the mouth of the Mississippi River, only to collapse just before completion. History condemns the original designer, Benjamin Latrobe, for the structure's failure. However, my research shows that the contractor, Winslow Lewis, was at fault. I noted in my message that both designer and contractor were Freemasons. It would seem to be in line with the show's mission that "unearthing" the foundations of the original lighthouse and its successor would potentially change the history behind these structures. I have never heard back from Mr. Wolter.

Reply
Only Human
12/5/2013 10:35:58 am

I'm kind of wondering if so many people who are claiming they watch the show for "entertainment value" are only saying that to hide the fact that they are genuinely watching because they are interested and embarrassed to say so.

Mr. Covalito himself in this very forum doesn't even deny that there was indeed a European presence in America prior to 1492 if you scroll to his post above. Paleo-Indians migrated from Asia 15000 years ago which is well before anyone.

Are you aware of what explorer the name America is derived from? Yet he is not credited for being a discoverer of the new world as he came shortly after Columbus.

Reply
Jason Colavito link
12/5/2013 10:41:21 am

The Vikings had a colony in Canada, at L'Anse-aux-Meadows, around 1000 CE. They may have explored somewhat to the south. There is no evidence of any European presence in the continental United States prior to the Contact Period.

Only Human
12/5/2013 10:51:23 am

Specifically in America? No, although there is controversial evidence to suggest it.

I don't understand what your talking about concerning the lighthouse. Are you saying that Freemasons are to blame for faulty engineering and it's a conspiracy to cover up to protect their image? I assume it was a colonial lighthouse? I'm failing to see the point you were trying to make there.

Only Human
12/5/2013 11:03:19 am

United States, yes, I should have clarified. My mistake.

JayR link
12/5/2013 11:13:40 am

I believe I learned about Amerigo Vespucci in 4th grade. But I do watch the show for entertainment value as Mr. Wolter never really seems to prove anything he sets out to prove. I am intrigued by his assertions; I keep an open mind; and I really hope that he finds something of substance. However, he ends up discrediting himself by making outlandish assertions with hardly even a wisp of hard evidence. I do find it entertaining!

Only Human
12/5/2013 11:18:14 am

What was your point about this lighthouse you mentioned? Did it have something to do with his assertions or were you trying to implicate something about Freemasonry?

JayR link
12/5/2013 11:50:32 am

My point in bringing up the lighthouses is I submitted to Mr. Wolter a case in which history seems to have it wrong, and I wanted to give him a subject of substance in which I feel he could really prove something historical. I brought up the fact that two Freemasons played a major role in the story, only because Mr. Wolter does not seem to consider pursuing any lead unless it can be tied back to either Freemasons or the Knights Templar. Either way, I did not hear back from Mr. Wolter. If you would like to take a look at my research on the subject, please click the website link in my name or go to the Frank's Island Lighthouse Blog...

http://franksislandlight.blogspot.com/

Only Me
12/5/2013 12:06:18 pm

That does seem strange, since he went to the trouble of claiming that a keystone in a colonial windmill was the stone effigy of a vagina...waiting patiently for a solar penis to strike it in a daily replay of cosmic nookie.

Then again, if the lighthouse collapsed due to faulty engineering, despite Freemason expertise, it shoots a hole in his claim that the Masons are behind a global conspiracy to control history. How could they do that, if they can't build a lighthouse?

Reply
Only Human
12/5/2013 12:12:42 pm

It's ironic because the basic structure according to the architectural drawing loosely resembles the Newport Tower which is what Only Me is also referencing. I am not saying they are in any way connected but if they were it may serve to prove the Newport Tower is definitely not from pre-Colombian times.

Only Me
12/6/2013 08:46:32 am

Just going off-topic briefly...here's an excerpt from a website I found some time ago.

"Lastly, there are some anecdotal stories about it, but the most compelling story is this; in 1643, Roger Williams, co-founder of the colony, published a book called "A Key into the Language of America". This was based on his years of friendly contact with the Narragansett people, and it included not just details of their language, but also a great deal of information about their culture and their view of the world around them. One thing it does not include, however, is a single word about a mysterious stone tower on Aquidneck Island."

Only Human
12/7/2013 07:35:16 am

I'd say that's keeping right with the topic. And you can probably find a basis for the sun and moon and the constellations in almost any culture or civilization.

Andy
12/5/2013 10:39:30 pm

I am a real archaeologist. I do real archaeology. I am not now, nor have I ever been, part of a conspiracy to hide true history from the American people.

I have an idea for a program where I go around exposing the hidden history of concrete testing in this country. There will be lots of scenes of me talking on the phone and repeating what I have already said. I have pitched it to the History Channel and am awaiting a response.

Reply
Brent
12/6/2013 01:12:22 am

You won't hear back from them, because as an "academic" you don't understand the scientific method. You and your ilk are far too emotional to see the evidence. You lack the qualifications required for a TV show on the History channel, or for uncovering the Truth.

Or at least that's what Scott Wolter thinks, judging from his recent radio appearance.

Reply
Andy
12/6/2013 01:18:43 am

I disagree: I think my passion for revealing the true hidden history of concrete testing will be obvious. If the History Channel can't appreciate a money making idea like this one, I'll take it to Spike.

Cory
12/6/2013 01:12:31 am

You and Jason could team up...

Reply
Andy
12/6/2013 01:39:41 am

I would certainly look into his books (which I have not yet read) if I ever teach a course on junk archaeology.

Dr. Sheldon Cooper
12/8/2013 06:57:15 am

Here's where you messed up...you shouldn't have just pitched concrete testing...instead...<i>forensic</i> concrete testing.

Reply
Black Hole
12/6/2013 03:28:20 am

This is hilarious!! One guy who has no real background in archeology, owns a concrete testing company, has only a bachelors degree and gets a TV show testing rocks VS a guy with a bachelors degree in anthropology and journalism, has done no real field work, only believes what came out of his textbooks from school and connects everything to a science fiction writer that had mental instabilities and died penniless and homeless having a smackdown?? And they are both suddenly experts in science and archeology to boot!

Why don't you both leave the real work to the real experts and go back to school.

Reply
Jason Colavito link
12/6/2013 03:52:30 am

What fieldwork is needed to evaluate whether an ancient text says what Wolter says it says, or if it is even ancient? I have never claimed to be an expert in anything, and I don't hide that.

Reply
Black Hole
12/6/2013 04:10:47 am

Seriously....?
So you are saying that you are that capable of evaluating everything from your computer?

By your own admission, your not an expert than how are you so confident in devoting this entire website to saying that anyone's finding is false? Because it's not in a book? Because a book says it's not possible?

Come on....

Black Hole
12/6/2013 04:27:24 am

Hey, Chris, there's no land to the west so don't bother looking.

Hey, Galileo, the Earth is the center of the universe so dont waste your time investigating for yourself.

Hey, J.F.K., the Cubans don't have missiles aimed at us so don't waste time flying overhead to find out.


Black Hole
12/6/2013 04:51:20 am

I went to a community college so I'm not as smart as the university graduates

But one of my teachers said "do your own research and always, always look into things for yourself, no matter how obscure, no matter how small the anomaly"

And this was a business management class....

Jason Colavito link
12/6/2013 05:04:37 am

Of course I can't evaluate everything from my computer. But you don't have to travel to Ireland to evaluate the "Book of Tephi," which exists all on its own as a book that I have a copy of. You don't have to travel to Israel to evaluate whether the Bible says anything about whether Jeremiah hauled the Ark to Ireland. Questions about ancient texts can be answered by reading the texts in question, which is something I do all the time.

And neither I nor Scott Wolter has a permit to excavate ANYWHERE, so traveling to these sites is window-dressing. What exactly did Wolter do at Tara that I can't do with a phone call or email to a specialist in Irish archaeology? The real work is done by actual archaeologists, who publish their findings for people like you and me and anyone else to review and evaluate.

Black Hole
12/6/2013 05:25:32 am

Exactly, so you take everything at face value from a book. If it's not in a book it didn't or couldn't have happened. Armchair archeologists. Why don't you go look and do the physical investigation yourself? How do you know you won't find something that may prove or even disprove something, or interpret something that's been misinterpreted that proves or disproves what we think we know?

You just said both you and the Wolter guy don't even have permits to do any of the work yourselves so how are either of you qualified to say who's right or wrong? But you have a website devoted to saying anyone's new idea is wrong and he has a TV show showing alternative history.

Gimme a break....

Jason Colavito link
12/6/2013 05:35:15 am

So you completely misunderstand the concept. I'm not taking a claim "out of a book." The book IS the claim. I imagine you've never engaged in archival research, which is an essential part of the discipline of history.

If someone says "The Book of Tephi" is ancient and states that Jeremiah took the Ark to Ireland, and the "Book of Tephi" was actually written in 1897, you don't need to fly to Ireland to notice that the claim is wrong.

Black Hole
12/6/2013 06:04:48 am

No, your not understanding my point. And I'm not talking about a specific instance or detail. I'm talking about the entirety of what he does and what you do.

Archival research....you can assume my intelligence and experience to be whatever you think it is but it still doesn't change the point.

To be honest, I never actually watched an episode of this Wolter guys show or the Ancient Alien show so I don't even know what they are essentially about except that it's my opinion that they are probably only shows to gather ratings with wild and outrageous claims. And then you have a website where you say you are not an expert, you don't investigate or look at anything for yourself, you don't have a permit to do any work yourself but you can emphatically state that anyone's idea that differed from written history is wrong? You seriously believe just because a written account by whomever that is ancient or an original archival record written by whomever that it's going to tell the explicit and absolute truth in fine detail of history??

I consider you to be in the same class as Wolter and the alien show. You all distort history by claiming that it happened a different way, was done by aliens or it only happened the way that it was written or couldn't have happened in any other way beyond what we already know. People need to stop watching shows like that and and stop listening to narrow and closed minded people with little to no experience.

Start looking at everything for yourselves. Get up and out and start making and creating your own ideas and drawing your own conclusions instead of relying on shows like that or websites like this.

Jason Colavitolink12/06/2013 11:52am
What fieldwork is needed to evaluate whether an ancient text says what Wolter says it says, or if it is even ancient? I have never claimed to be an expert in anything, and I don't hide that.
Reply
Black Hole12/06/2013 12:10pm
Seriously....?
So you are saying that you are that capable of evaluating everything from your computer?

By your own admission, your not an expert than how are you so confident in devoting this entire website to saying that anyone's finding is false? Because it's not in a book? Because a book says it's not possible?

Come on....

The Other J.
12/6/2013 08:33:52 am

So tell us true history, oh great Black Hole oracle?

And you can't use any books, or any physical evidence. Because if you do, you're lying. Isn't that how it works?

Dr. Sheldon Cooper
12/8/2013 07:07:24 am

Obviously someone hasn't taken the "Critical Thinking" components of his/her GE yet.
(Note: that someone is Black Hole, who obviously needs to be spoon fed his/her information.)

"But one of my teachers said 'do your own research and always, always look into things for yourself, no matter how obscure, no matter how small the anomaly'"

Good luck on the GMAT, bro. And good luck keeping a job in the business world as well. A big part of life is deciding at what point you say "I have enough info" and make a decision. How much do you want to spend to get more information? Information is never going to be perfect, period. There is always going to be some uncertainty.

All Jason has done is debunked Scott on those areas that are obviously debunkable. He is making extraordinary claims, and backing them up with (at best) marginal evidence.

Reply
Wilson
5/10/2015 08:59:20 am

The contrast here is between pseudo-scientific rambling loaded with speculation passed off as academic thought and the application of critical thinking. Mr. Colavito simply applies proper methodology and thought to demonstrate the hucksterish nature of the show; he's not coming up with some competing theory as a non-expert and trying to advocate for that against Mr. Wolter.

Reply
Andy
12/6/2013 06:18:12 am

Each episode of the show purports to lay out a compelling case for some idea or event or interpretation that runs counter to "mainstream" science, archaeology, history, whatever. One doesn't need to follow in Wolter's footsteps to make a judgement about the strength of his case based on the evidence he presents. It's really not that complicated.

Reply
Black Hole
12/6/2013 06:32:39 am

So I say again...

Start looking at everything for yourselves. Get up and out and start making and creating your own ideas and drawing your own conclusions instead of relying on shows like that or websites like this.

Reply
Jason Colavito link
12/6/2013 06:38:48 am

Then please be the first to donate to a travel fund so I and my readers can tour these sites to "draw our own conclusions." Not everyone is made of money. On the other hand, Immanuel Kant never left his hometown and yet made amazing contributions to intellectual history.

As for "my own ideas": Clearly you have failed to see my extensive list of publications, including my upcoming book on the development of the Jason and the Argonauts myth, and my revisionist history of the horror genre.

Andy
12/6/2013 06:41:46 am

Thanks for the pep talk Black Hole. You've really inspired me to . . . oh wait - I already do those things. Nevermind.

Black Hole
12/6/2013 06:47:04 am

Ok, now we are going to go to that level.
If you can't take the criticism or can't do the actual research and investigations than stop doing what your doing is my whole point. Stop implying that you know everything is factually wrong about a theory.

I can't believe you just stooped to that level and acting like that.

And no, I don't believe everything relates to H.P. Lovecraft in some sort of spiderwebbed way.

Black Hole
12/6/2013 06:49:10 am

Inspired you to do what?? You shouldn't need inspiration and you were the one that gave the review of the show.

Jason Colavito link
12/6/2013 06:50:58 am

There is no H. P. Lovecraft conspiracy.

You seem confused about what "research" is. There are different types. Field work involves the collection and processing of material. Then there is interpretation, which involves textual research, evaluating arguments, etc. That's the part I do.

But, take a page from your own argument: If you aren't going to do the research, stop talking.

Andy
12/6/2013 06:54:34 am

You said you hadn't seen the show - I was trying to help you out.

Black Hole
12/6/2013 06:55:04 am

Wow....who said anything about a conspiracy???? Did you just make that up to support your own conclusion?!

You guys are getting awfully sore about this aren't you.....guess it hurts when you hit a nerve...

Black Hole
12/6/2013 06:57:38 am

How? By the sarcastic "inspiration" remark?

Jason Colavito link
12/6/2013 07:01:44 am

I was just trying to summarize. If you'd like the longer version of the book you obviously never read yet somehow felt entitled to comment on (gee, how can that be?), I discussed the way Lovecraft's fiction preserved Theosophical ideas and introduced them to the authors of Morning of the Magicians, who are the acknowledged inspiration for Erich von Daniken, the most famous ancient astronaut theorist. See? Not "everything" relating in a "spiderwebby" way; just a straightforward set of influences.

Black Hole
12/6/2013 07:07:58 am

Truly, I'm happy for you, and your book. And the clarification.

I still don't understand how you claim that I am accusing you of conspiracy.

I never accused you of any conspiracy, cover up, or whatever about anything.

Your clearly trying to control the direction of the talk and making an accusation that you can't even support. Much like your "own ideas"

Reply
Black Hole
12/6/2013 07:09:37 am

I wouldn't be surprised if you and Wolter are working together just to drum up business for your shows and books.

Reply
The Other J.
12/6/2013 08:37:51 am

Black Hole: "I still don't understand how you claim that I am accusing you of conspiracy."

Black Hole: "I wouldn't be surprised if you and Wolter are working together just to drum up business for your shows and books."

You're funny.

Jason Colavito link
12/6/2013 07:13:58 am

OK, so you did not follow anything I wrote at all. You didn't accuse me of a conspiracy, nor did I think you did. I was summarizing your point about Lovecraft as a connecting link in a spider web as a "Lovecraft conspiracy" for short.

I highly doubt I'd be working with a man who tried to sue me. That's a bit masochistic even for me.

Reply
Black Hole
12/6/2013 07:28:00 am

You responded by telling me there is no Lovecraft conspiracy. Therefore you were accusing me of accusing you of having some sort of Lovcraft conspiracy. All I said was I don't believe everything somehow relates to Lovecraft in some sort of spiderwebbed way.

So if you took that as me implying conspiracy than I apologize and I am truly sorry that I did not word that better. I do not believe that you believe in any sort of conspiracy related to Lovecraft in any sort of way.

But since your responding to me and everyone is reading this than using the word conspiracy to summarize I felt you were trying to imply something to your followers.

So my mistake.

An Over-Educated Grunt
12/6/2013 07:12:44 am

You know, I hadn't felt the need to comment up until now, but I think that there's reason enough to do this just because so many of the new names and faces are astoundingly negative.

Jason, you do good, solid work on this blog. It's on a volunteer basis, so given that you're being sniped at for what's basically your hobby, I think you display admirable restraint. If you veer into snark sometimes in episode reviews, or choose to beat whatever drum you choose - it's your blog, you own it, and no one else HAS to be allowed to post. That you do so should speak volumes about your civility compared to several of the other commenters (not all, but this post's a good example). That they choose to respond with an ad-hominem about your research subject almost out the gate says even more.

And no, I'm not a sock-puppet, a kiss-up, or anything else. I've been reading this blog for months without feeling the need to comment because I didn't feel my comments would add positive value. Now? I'm quite willing to say this - Jason, please carry on. Not all your readers or new commenters are conducting visual proctological self-exams.

Reply
Black Hole
12/6/2013 07:20:40 am

Interesting indeed. Yes, block the voices of dissension. Can't have that on your own open blog. And from what I can tell, I'm only one of few negative comment posts on here. Also, I'm bashing him just as harshly as Wolter and the Alien show and no more than he bashes them.

Reply
An Over-Educated Grunt
12/6/2013 07:26:03 am

Really? You want me to engage you directly? Okay, I'll bite.

You want us to get out and investigate everything for ourselves. That's a fine principle. Tell me, every time you fire your car up, do you verify that electricity still causes a spark across the starter? Do you confirm that gasoline still explodes in combustion? Do you confirm before you leave the house that every single person is going to drive on the correct side of the road? Or do you assume, based on documentary evidence, that all of those things are exactly the same as they were yesterday? Do you honestly believe that every time someone learns a new piece of material, they should re-invent the wheel? Do you truly think that every time an entry-level physics student gets to class, they should re-write Newton's "Principia?" Do you think that a line-by-line review of the Constitution, or the US Code, is needed every time someone gets arrested?

Please, tell me how far you follow your own credo, I'm very curious. I want to discover this for myself.

Black Hole
12/6/2013 07:39:06 am

This is amazing. Trying to engage "YOU" directly?? You state that like I'm going to be afraid because it's you?

So now it's come to questioning me. And why do feel the need to now direct this towards me. And what strange is that your post almost proves the point I'm trying to make all along. And yes, I do everything for myself, I question everything and do my own work and draw my own conclusions. Just because something is written does mean it's set in stone. That's part of the reason the constitution has an elastic clause. And who said anything about rewriting history or redefining it?? And based on your posts name and the "engage you" directly remark I would assume your a bit of a narcissist but I could be wrong. I don't know you and you certainly don't know me.

An Over-Educated Grunt
12/6/2013 07:45:28 am

You responded to my comment. Of course, clearly, you were speaking to the ether. My apologies.

As long as we're both speaking to the wall, I'm glad there's someone out there with the funding and life to spend on it to rewrite every single text on every single subject any time we doubt the original. Certainly, it must be a fine luxury to be able to say there's no evidence that, say, water flows downhill until I test it myself. I am glad that there's someone out there with the resources to spend on doing literally everything for himself. It must be a fine thing to mine the raw materials to make your own car, nay, not even mine, for that requires tools, to first craft the raw tools from stone, wood, and fire, that one can begin quarrying! Why, it must be a positive delight to have to capture lighting every time one wishes to use fire, because matches are unproven until they have been tested!

There is one thing I would like to take issue with, though:

"Just because something is written does mean it's set in stone."

Seems a tad unlikely, and out of keeping with the rest of your piece.

Black Hole
12/6/2013 07:51:57 am

Your being a bit immature about this now and I'm not going there. So I'll let your last response speak for itself to anyone reading that that is now your argument.

An Over-Educated Grunt
12/6/2013 08:03:17 am

You want to call me immature? Fine, if that's what it takes to make you stop talking, you're a no-good doody-head poopy McPoopenstien.

Fact is, there's a fundamental difference between you showing up here and yelling at the top of your lungs first about how you laugh at everyone involved, on a site paid for by the guy you laugh at, and someone running a site of their own, at their own cost, at the risk of repeated lawsuit, commenting on something that doesn't happen here at all. You stepped into his living room (because he owns the space), and started sniping. I'm pretty sure that jasoncolavito.com isn't a sub-domain of history.com, so let's just line you up on false equivalency there.

Now let's move on to ad-hominem. You've repeatedly said that, let's start with an easy one, apparently Jason believes everything relates to H.P. Lovecraft in some way. Since I know you won't believe me if I don't offer evidence (you have said so yourself, I should go and investigate!), here's a quote: " a guy with a bachelors degree in anthropology and journalism, has done no real field work, only believes what came out of his textbooks from school and connects everything to a science fiction writer that had mental instabilities and died penniless and homeless" Again, your words, not mine. So your attack isn't on his work, but on his qualifications. Never mind your later walk-back, you said it, you can't un-ring the bell, as someone else said here recently.

When you get pushed into a corner, and you've done it twice now, you claim those arguing with you are immature, and that they, not you, should be able to take the criticism, so, again, using primary sources, "If you can't take the criticism or can't do the actual research and investigations than stop doing what your doing is my whole point."

Sweet science of boxing. I was drawn out of Lurkerland to say that people like you weren't the only ones reading this, that there were people who took something useful away, and you decided to make it all about you, and for that matter, me. Fact is, you can't support your arguments. When anyone, not just me, points out their many flaws, you accuse them of personal attacks, immaturity, or "going that way." You decided to show up and be a jerk on someone else's website, and you act butthurt when someone responds to you in the same vein.

Black Hole
12/6/2013 08:08:14 am

Haha...ok...as I said!!....

An Over-Educated Grunt
12/6/2013 08:24:32 am

As you've said, what? You've said so much it's hard to find the pony under the manure.

Black Hole
12/6/2013 08:54:23 am

Ok

Santa C.
12/6/2013 11:15:04 am

I'd have to side with black hole here. That argument sunk kinda low and technically grunt broke the rules of the forum.

Black hole:
I'm with Jason when it comes to america unearthed and ancient aliens. Somebody has to pull people back to the ground. Next thing you see will be Jason having to debunk the theory that The Avengers movie was based on true events! Or that Jessica Simpson is a great actress!

Sarah Roemer
12/6/2013 10:27:50 pm

Poopyhead? Find the pony under all his manure?
I agree that's become a childish argument. The "butthurt" comment I find extremely offensive and you are obviously taking a stab at his sexuality. You are the one who made the argument about the individual you are insulting and I'm surprised that your posts weren't removed.

As for the original topic, all tv shows do anything for ratings. If the public is watching it, they will continue to air shows like this and somebody, whether it be Jason or not, will eventually call them out on their errors or lies. Yes, one should always be open to new ideas and theories, but one also needs to weed out the ideas or theories that have no basis or logic to them whatsoever.

Robert K. Denton Jr., CPG link
12/6/2013 07:30:09 am

I was able to examine the "Stone of Destiny" about two years before Scott Wolter, and Jack Andrews allowed me to have a small chip to perform some petrologic analysis on. Its mineralogy, grain size distribution, and grain morphology compared favorably with the Devonian Age "Old Red Sandstone" of the British Isles. I did not look like any of the sandstones from the Culpeper Basin of VA/MD. I'm fairly convinced that the stone originated in Britain, but any connection to the Ark of the Covenant is, in my opinion, wild-eyed conjecture and not supported by objective fact.

Reply
Jason Colavito link
12/6/2013 08:04:25 am

Given that the area was settled by British colonists, and ships carried all sorts of Old World stones in their ballasts that were then reused and recycled here, this would be an entirely expected conclusion. Thanks for sharing.

Reply
Stephen JC
12/6/2013 11:36:45 am

If this is true, wouldn't there be rocks from America in Britain? If so, is there anyway way to find them to do testing? Wouldn't that answer the question? Also, why would they have brought the stone of destiny here? I mean everything from jesus crucifixion site, his tomb and Solomon's temple to the foundation stone had a shrine built around them so You would think if they found the stone of destiny they would have done exactly the same. And even if it were the stone of destiny why would it have that hole craved in the middle of it? I thought it was a ladder or stairway he saw.

Gunn
12/7/2013 06:30:21 am

Red and soft sounds like possibly pipestone, which was dispersed from MN for hundreds of years...but sandstone may be more coarse and accurate to the description. A geologist could tell quite easily.

Reply
Robert K. Denton Jr., CPG link
12/9/2013 02:58:10 am

Gunn, I said "Old" Red Sandstone, not "soft" Red Sandstone. If you were at all familiar with the geological nomenclature and stratigraphy of the British Isles you would know the Old Red Sandstone is a formally described lithostratographic unit of the Devonian series. It is called "Old" to differentiate it from the overlying "New Red Sandstone".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Red_Sandstone
If you are going to reply to a post, at least quote me correctly.

BTW, do you know what those letters, "CPG", behind my name mean? Certified Professional Geologist.

Like I said in my original post; I examined the stone personally as well as a chip from the stone using microscopy. So I didn't base my findings on second hand information. The "Stone of Destiny" owned by Mr. Andrews is sandstone, and would seem to have originated in Britain. That's the only informed conclusion I can draw from my findings. As far as whether it is the authentic "Lia Fail" or coronation stone of the Tuatha de Danaan of ancient Ireland, that is a question for an archaeologist, not a geologist. I can only speak with some confidence on the provenience of the rock from which it was carved.

Also, pipestone is a form of argillite called "Catlinite", a type of soft mudstone. It looks nothing like a sandstone, and certainly nothing like what Mr. Andrews' stone is composed of.

Gunn
12/11/2013 01:41:49 am

No, sorry, I wasn't at all familiar with the geological nomenclature and stratigraphy of.... Whew! And again, sorry, I didn't know the letters "CPG" means Certified Professional Geologist. Additionally, I wasn't attempting to quote you. If that were my intention, I would've used quotation marks. I was simply honing in on the red and soft and quite innocently speculating about how it might resemble pipestone. Not being an expert, as you are, I was attempting to gain more information, which you did kindly provide. Next time, I'll research online more instead of being dumbly curious on the blog...I guess.

(Prune juice?)

Joe
12/6/2013 03:57:29 pm

Good Evening,

I first want to say that I thoroughly enjoy Jason's blog and in general agree with his position on many subjects. In most cases I find it unnecessary to support or defend Jason's blog or opinions. But in this first review of the new season of American Unearthed he seemed to have draw quite of bit of attention in the form of comments to his blog. Due to the popularity of the show it appears that Jason has drawn a larger audience. I am not sure if we should congratulate Jason for the response or be discouraged by the people at American Unearthed for having such a weak online presence that Jason's blog appears so high up on any google search.

I am an avid reader of Jason's blog, but in general find it unnecessary in most cases to post a comment. But based on the comment section conversation I would like to add my two cents. Specifically with the last comments going back and forth with Mr. B. Hole. I first would like to state that I think in general that most people in this comment section are polite in their commentary and do their best to stay above personal attacks but on occasion shots are taken and I will do my best to avoid such shots.

In general Mr. Hole, I feel that you fail to understand the point and purpose of Jason's Blog. Jason is not stating a specific theory or hypothesis on any particular event in history. I think it is obvious that he has stated on numerous occasions that he is examining claims by fringe historians and offering countering arguments. In this role it is not necessary for him to follow on the heels of people like Mr. Wolter to prove his point, but examine the basis of their theories and show how feeble of an argument that they present. In the instance of this most recent episode it seems ridiculous to follow Wolters thought process when at his very first stop in Ireland it was easily proven by Jason that the initial claim of the Ark in Ireland is based on a fictitious poem. So why would anyone follow Wolter to the next step in his theory if the first point is mute? Again I am basing my argument on the events of the episode itself. But in general Jason's point, and the argument of many on Jason's blog, is that Mr. Wolter fails to utilize even the most basic research and archeological standards in his work. As others have pointed out in the past, Mr. Wolter fails to use any form of scientific or commonly practiced research techniques in his process. In fact Jason has shown that Wolter has not even read the best literary source on the Ark of the Covenant, the Bible, in his research. In general Wolter has utilized second or third hand sources in his work. Wolter and his supports have claimed that he has done extensive research on the topic but I find that hard to believe when Jason is so quickly able to pull up documents and counter arguments to their point. I do not necessary blame Wolter for this behavior, it appears that many fringe historians and theorists refuse to do the extensive work that is necessary to back up their claims.

So, as you state it is necessary to keep an open mind and experience things in the first person as often as we are able to. In cases in which we are unable to experience it first hand we rely on the observation and research by others. We also expect these others to utilize standardized research and practices in their work to reach their conclusions. We use this most basic reasoning in not only scientific research but also in everyday life. For example when we go to our local mechanic we utilize his knowledge and experience to diagnose the issue with our vehicle and utilizing common practices and knowledge to repair the vehicle. If we refused to take their observations and instead insisted that it is necessary to experience it ourselves it would take much longer and probably improperly repaired in the end.

Reply
Observer
12/6/2013 04:15:49 pm

After watching the episode this evening I did a search on the stone of destiny and found your website.

I am not familiar with this program or Scott Wolter. Just got cable and found the H2 channel.

I say this without prejudice or to denigrate the LDS church: While watching the program I thought that perhaps it was an investigation taken up by a Mormon scientist to try to confirm their belief regarding the lost tribe of Israel coming to the United States.

Reply
Darren
12/6/2013 07:28:41 pm

Honestly, I enjoy America Unearthed! I find it interesting and offers a new take on history. True or false, compelling or fringe, I don't judge that way. Do I personally believe it or not? I can't really say either way. The show says how it could of happened and Covalito says how it's not possible. My own belief is that we will eventually find a few things to prove certain topics and then find a few to prove that it's not true, but probably 99% of it we will never know for sure.

Reply
Wilson
5/10/2015 09:05:36 am

The problem is the show does not really say how it could have happened. The show makes a series of often-unsupported wild speculations with "maybes" and "probablys." Covalito does not say "how it's not possible," but focuses on the logical fallacies presented.

Reply
Charles
12/7/2013 07:12:11 am

This website only serves to promote the shows it criticizes. Controversy generates a great buzz among people.

Reply
Jason Colavito link
12/7/2013 07:14:50 am

That is the risk of all criticism, drawing attention to that which it criticizes. However, given the number of people who are looking for answers about questions raised by the program, I felt it was my duty to provide those answers. I sincerely doubt that this website is controversial enough to generate "buzz."

Reply
Charles
12/7/2013 08:02:16 am

I disagree. With as popular as the shows have become I think your website will only grow with more people looking for the answers you provide. And it wasn't meant to imply that your website on its own is controversial, but the shows that your website is reviewing.

Clint Knapp
12/8/2013 01:44:50 pm

I actually QUIT watching Ancient Aliens after I found Jason's blog. I was already fed up with the show and tired of the way they mutilate and exploit any snippet of potentially ambiguous history, and came here after Mike Heiser's blog provided a link for one article or another.

With AU, I haven't even bothered with more than two episodes to get a feel for it. After countless articles and source checking, I tend to trust Jason's recounting and evaluation more than I am curious to keep watching a grown man throw a fit about not being taken seriously for an hour a week.

Only Human
12/7/2013 07:41:52 am

True, but it also serves to promote the author as well. And it should!!

Reply
Bob
12/7/2013 09:13:19 am

Anytime anyone challenges academic scholars or the Catholic Church they are instantly branded a crackpot or a heretic.

Reply
Andy
12/7/2013 09:29:05 am

That is nonsense, at least as far as academics. "Academic scholars" are not one unified, monolithic group with a single viewpoint. There are plenty of archaeological/anthropological topics that are the subject of vigorous debate. But if your "challenge" uses completely different standards of evidence from those accepted in the discipline, don't expect to be welcomed into the debate as an equal partner. Some evidence is inadmissible in court because it has been tampered with or is hearsay. Peer review is rough even for "established" academics. If you can't take some punches, get out of the ring.

Reply
Charles
12/7/2013 09:42:53 am

His statement is not nonsense, it just way too broad in the time we live in. A long time ago it would have been valid on its own. Today, scholars seem more open to to considering new ideas that have some basic foundation of evidence and reason. The Dead Scrolls for example. And the church today doesn't have anywhere near the influence it once had to "damn" people. Dan Brown for example was inadvertently helped by the church's attempt to discredit him.

Only Human
12/7/2013 10:02:28 am

Relax, Andy, it's just one persons opinion and he is entitled to it. Wording your responses to be aggressive, sore and defensive is only giving him the reaction his statement is probably intended to evoke.

Andy
12/7/2013 01:20:59 pm

Religious dogma and academic inertia are not the same thing. Academic journals are a graveyard of ideas that turned out to be wrong - that's how science works. It takes time for ideas to be evaluated, accepted, built upon, etc. Real archaeologists publish things all the time that provoke criticism, debate, and further work. That's how the system works. If a person does not like his or her ideas being closely examined, he or she should protect them as "belief" rather than present them as "science."

Charles
12/7/2013 05:27:13 pm

I don't think he was saying they were the same thing. I think he's saying if you challenge scholars with whatever radical idea then your a "crackpot"
If you challenge the church with whatever radical idea your a "heretic"
At least that's how I understood it.

Andy
12/7/2013 11:43:17 pm

I think putting those things in the same sentence is pretty clearly making a comparison. They are not the same thing. It is a refrain that one hears all the time now - blaming the rejection of "outside ideas" on some kind of closed academic culture rather than the weakness of the idea or its presentation. Academic culture has its issues, but it does not work by repressing new ideas. It actually thrives on new ideas. But those ideas have to be presented and defended in a way that they will be taken seriously. You can't just assert whatever you want without evidence, say "all ideas should be given the same consideration no matter how weak the case is," and then complain when you're not taken seriously.

America Unearthed thrives on: (1) recycling old ideas, most of which can be shown to have no merit based on the material record; (2) tapping into the belief that any idea idea is just as good as another; (3) asserting that these alternative ideas are not considered because of some widespread conspiracy or some other such nonsense. Sometimes bad ideas are rejected because they're actually just bad ideas.

And, yes, there actually are real crackpots out there who do not have a grasp of reality. They have visited my office, sent me letters and emails, and taken me out to "sites."

Reply
Jill H.
12/7/2013 11:30:34 am

I like america unearthed. I think what Wolter is doing, or at least attempting, is radical but refreshing. I feel most of his shows at least present a decent postulation. I'll admit this recent episode was sloppy and probably his worst presentation of a theory. Call me what you want and criticize me as you will but it's my opinion.

Reply
Darren
12/7/2013 11:35:59 am

Yeah but did you see the preview of his next episode?? The Denver airport and a secret hidden bunker underneath. It has nothing to do with history or archeology which is the point of the show.

Reply
Matt Mc
12/7/2013 12:49:12 pm

I wonder that also, my guess is the Georgia Guide-stones will be mentioned.

Darren
12/7/2013 12:57:39 pm

Aren't they a modern invention as well? And they are sitting right out in the open. So again, it's not archeology or history. He's venturing off into Jesse Ventura conspiracy theory.

Stephen JC
12/7/2013 12:18:13 pm

Ironically ancient aliens latest show was also about the ark of the covenant. The put forth that if it was not Divine power of god than what else could it be. A form of primitive nuclear power given to them by ancient aliens. They also believe it is hidden under the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. If you remove the divine power of god then what else could give it the power to do as it supposedly did? I actually found it be a very interesting question.

Reply
Only Me
12/7/2013 12:42:56 pm

If you remove the divine power of God from the Ark, then it's nothing more than an ornate box.

Unfortunately, AA wants to have it both ways. The Ark has "godlike"
powers, but they derive not from the supernatural, but from the technological. However, given the list of feats attributed to the Ark in just that one episode, it becomes a literal deus ex machine...a god from a device/an artifice.

Reply
Only Me
12/7/2013 12:45:23 pm

Oops. That should have read deus ex machina. Apparently it was auto-corrected the first time.

Stephen JC
12/7/2013 12:53:36 pm

That's another way of looking at it too. But I wasn't really talking about any kind of faith. I meant that if it was not the Devine power of god, and it still accomplished the feats the bible claims, what else could it be that gave it the power it had? I guess I mean the question itself was interesting and not necessarily or entirely what AA put forth.

MB Johnston
12/7/2013 03:27:29 pm

I'm waiting for the episode of AU where Wolter speculates that there is a massive "hooked x" on the dark side of the moon indicating that the Knights Templar hid the holy grail there in the 6th century by crafting a rocket made of gopherwood, and inlaid gold.

Reply
Only Human
12/7/2013 04:16:58 pm

I believe you mean the 11th century.

Reply
R. Newburne
12/7/2013 03:52:14 pm

I too enjoy the show and am looking forward to the new season. Despite all the criticism.

Reply
Stephen JC
12/7/2013 04:03:42 pm

I love the show but I also look forward to reading Jason's reviews. Some things I side with Wolter on because I think he present decent evidence to suggest it could be the way he claims. But some things I side with Jason on as he produces facts to state otherwise. The ark of the covenant show....I have to side with Jason.

Reply
Holly Richutti
12/7/2013 04:29:36 pm

I've seen segments of episodes of both shows. I'll say they are intriguing although I've never really watched a full episode of either to give a true judgement. But I noticed on the media section of this page that the author Jason mentions being involved in some way on the pilot episode and then the review on this page he mentions being "attacked" by the show and that is why he is now doing these negative reviews. This seems like a case of a little jealousy and bitterness.

Reply
R. Newburne
12/7/2013 04:44:20 pm

I wondered that as well.

Reply
Only Human
12/7/2013 05:08:53 pm

He's had a career of debunking these topics before and beyond these shows.

Jason Colavito link
12/7/2013 10:48:03 pm

I've never been involved with America Unearthed. I provided research assistance to a few History channel shows a decade ago, but not any of those I cover here. I've had my name used on Ancient Aliens (pilot episode) and America's Book of Secrets, in both cases to attack work I did prior to these shows ever airing, when I published my first debunking article back in 2004.

Does "jealous and bitter" work as an attack in the fringe world? I get that one about three times a week, and it often sounds like it's coming from a coordinated set of talking points.

Reply
Joyce D
12/8/2013 02:46:58 am

I just watched the New World Order episode, and I am shocked that Scott didn't go Jesse Ventura. He actually debunked all the conspiracy theorists.

That is step number one in his rehab program. He never even mentioned the keypad at Denver International airport.

Reply
Mike
1/3/2014 09:47:44 am

You comments are entirely too long. Please get to the point.

Reply
Wilson
5/10/2015 09:09:03 am

Whose comments? I think this comment could have been a bit longer, as it leaves so many questions.

Reply
Lori link
1/4/2014 07:58:41 am

Trying to ignore all the sniping and get back to the episode of AU being critiqued. I have done fieldwork in archaeology in the Great Plains, the Southwest, and Jordan (I only have a BA in the field; I do have an MA in linguistics, so have some academic cred). The petroglyphs that Mr. Wolter claimed represented the Ark if the Covenant are clearly Native American. The patterns are similar to others throughout Arizona and New Mexico. Mr. Wolter's evidence is non-existent. I don't oppose new theories; it wasn't that long ago that no one believed any Europeans were in the Americas (north or south) before Columbus. Solid work at Lanse Aux Meadows (sorry spellcheck keeps changing things) proved that "fact" incorrect. That was work, not wild speculation. If there are actual facts, and solid evidence, then Wolter's theories (almost hate to call his ideas "theories") may get my serious attention. Now I watch the show for laughs. Why doesn't he get real experts and not edit those he does contact? He just said Isis was a Greek goddess! Yes, the name Isis comes from Classical Greek, and the Greeks and Romans adopted her worship, but she was an Egyptian goddess first. He was trying to prove Egyptian artifacts hidden in Grand Canyon (still laughing) so why not say she was Egyptian? (Oh the evil conspiracy that causes the FAA to prevent flights below the canyon rim!) okay, I'm sniping, but NOT at other posters. Just at the nonsense that is AU. I can't watch AA because it has moved from amusing to annoying. Darn Von Daniken anyway!

Reply
Dave
3/31/2014 02:45:11 pm

come on everyone know the ark is in a big warehouse somewhere
in the USA...oh wait that was in a movie..

Reply
Davo
4/12/2014 07:35:05 am

Just an observation: Tara was Margeret Mitchell's setting in Gone with the Wind, that is, the mansion the Irish-family settled in the South, and which, if you listen closely in the movie, was mentioned as where the name of the mansion was derived--the land of heritage in Ireland which the now-Southern based family pays homage. Tara.

Reply
aimee curry link
5/3/2014 04:57:08 am

The box with the three XXX's is definitely respresenting the ark. The X represents the MacCurry coat of arms. The MacCurry's and other variations of that is the anglicized form of McMurrich or MacVurrich which is the galecized form of Korach or Korah as in Sons of Korah the only levitical priesthood family which was allowed to touch or transport the Ark of the Covenant. Also in a book called the Invention of Scotland by Hugh Trevor Roper he speaks about an incident where an Englishman named James Mcphereson traveled to Scotland to Clan Ranald to see if he could borrow one of two famous books of Clan Ranald one being the Red Book the other being the Black. He was a writer wishing to write a compilation or history of the peoples of the Isles (allegedly) Whilst there the Chief of the McDonalds told him about a far more ancient book that was in the possession of my family of famous Irish/Scottish bards named the McMurrich's. My famous relative Muiredach McMurrich fled to Scotland to The Chief of the McDonalds Clan Ranald where he became equally famous there. This book that he was speaking about was a huge book of what had previously been the Oral Histories of the Israelites spanning back to Adam and Eve up to the Israelites present time in Ireland. This Mcphereson man borrowed our book and never returned it. Not only that but the English ousted everyone after that completely rewrote history and claim that NO poems of the bards were preserved. They don't want the real Israelites to know that the fake Zionist "supposed jews" are imposters but here is what God has to say about them. Revelation 3:9 I know the blasphemy of those who call themselves Jews but do lie but are the synagogue of Satan. The Windsors are (Gog Magog imposters) They are descendants of Cain the dragon kings. You know how Isaiah 13:22 speaks of the dragons in their pleasant palaces. David Icke calls them reptillian shapeshifters although they are not aliens they are half human half fallen angel hybrids. Look up a disease called Porphyria that is associated with them. This is where the vampire legends come from. Because they are not fully human they need the Heme from humans blood to survive because sometimes they are not able to produce enough on their own. Ironically they do have an allergic reaction to garlic. Are extremely photosensitive and will blister and burn if exposed for too long. They will have painful stomach cramps if they need to feed. This is why the Rothschilds another one of the 13 Illuminati Satanic Bloodline families set up the Red Cross Blood Bank to stop all of the witch hunts that resulted from their abducting and ritually sacrificing humans. The apostle Paul says that Lucifer masquerades as an angel of Light/Lumen hence illuminati are what his offspring call themselves. This is why Lucifer is described as a reptile in the Garden of Eden. He was a seraphim angel seraph/is hebrew for serpent. Seraphim means burning ones as in illuminated ones. If you look up quetzecoatl you can tell by the descriptions of him he must also have been another fallen angel cast down to heaven with Lucifer also every where on every continent where there are the ancient pagan mystery school religions and pyramid or mound builders their are the fallen angel reptillian "so called gods to them" the history channel likes to call them Ancient Astronauts. I don't know why I got off on this weird subject but I digress. If you look into the famous McMurrich bards it says that they were the most illustrious body of learned men and that they went to school for as much as 20 years. It also says they didn't go to war or pay taxes. Just like the Levites. The more you research into it you will see the connection.

Reply
r
5/18/2014 06:17:17 am

It's all silly pseudoscience disproved and thoroughly debunked by competent investigation long ago. For some odd reason, people want to believe in fantasies.

Reply
aimeebcurry1967@yahoo.com
8/18/2014 06:43:00 pm

If it's all silly pseudoscience disproved and thoroughly debunked by competent investigation then explain to me why when the english replaced the lia fail stone. With an obelisk (penis of Lucifer) shaped stone, like they were telling Jesus to sit on it. Why did the great irish potatoe famine breakout?

Reply
Mj
3/4/2015 05:26:26 pm

This show is just clap trap made up of legends and twisted theories just to rope in viewers and make money. It is good for a chuckle...there is about as much science in this show as there is in my big toe. What is disturbing is how many people believe this muck?

Reply
stardawg
10/25/2015 12:50:33 am

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-sten-odenwald/pseudoscience-great-for-b_b_5610174.html

Reply
Charlotte
3/24/2017 04:19:41 pm

Posts began from 2013- was enjoying the reads when KABOOM, somehow The Red Cross became involved in nefarious evil, the poor royals have yet another National Enquirer headline in flames to put out and NOW we know what happened in November. Shapeshifters!

It would be ok if that post was removed? I just wanted to know if the debunking was complete. Honest. Now my willies have willies.

Reply
Bif Webster
5/19/2019 04:54:55 pm

Okay, you don't actually have to be an historian to figure out what's going on with this show.

Like Jason points out, there's lots of soft verbs and phrases used by the host. He's chock FULL of them. Lots of "if" lots of "could be" lots of "may include," AND MORE.

He double-talks. He conveniently says things like, "'If' this is true, it will 'prove' what we've been saying"... but when that fails to produce fruit, he will STILL say it "PROVED" out his (conspiracy) theory, ANYWAY?

Kids "debate" that way.

I've seen this guy work before... it's always the same way. He's using HIS faith in lieu of actual FACTS.

Also, I read a commenter give Jason crap about "not being able to prove YOUR theories"? Thinking that was a thing? Hey, bub who wrote that crap, it is NOT incumbent upon the folks ASKING for evidence to "PROVE" something the folks we're ASKING to prove THEIR theories, it is on THEM to do so.

Like the host, you're spinning things with that crap.

Also, most of these type shows, they're SO Northern European, White American centric. One religious ideology, usually... yeah, THAT ONE. The alleged "dominant" religion in the United States.

And as well all know by now, Americans LOVE to read or listen about THEIR "HISTORY." Well, white-washed history, or just plain conspiracies based upon religion, too, I suppose. It's the ultimate in confirmation bias and love for one's ego, ironically enough, that pushes this crap to the surface.

The Curse Of Oak Island is evidence of that. Where the only "Curse" stems from WATCHING THAT REPETITIVE DREK EVERY SINGLE WEEK. But I digress.

Yeah, this is just more self-love Aryan bullshit.

Reply
V. L. Levy
11/20/2022 05:34:16 am

Actually, even though the show was a total hot mess from the beginning, and I agree with everything you said, I will tell you this much- he WAS right about ONE thing; the Ark IS in Arizona!

The rest of the info was "validation breadcrumbs", not meant for anyone else, but the one who knows the truth behind the scenes. (Namely, myself!) I cannot explain what I know publicly. But please be kind to this wayward messenger. Scott and the individuals who helped put this whole 'disappointing' documentary together, were actually unknowingly acting on behalf of God to deliver a very powerful message to me at a time when I most needed to hear it.

Reply

Your comment will be posted after it is approved.


Leave a Reply.

    Blog
    Picture

    Author

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

    Become a Patron!
    Tweets by JasonColavito
    Picture

    Newsletters

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

    powered by TinyLetter

    Blog Roll

    Ancient Aliens Debunked
    Picture
    A Hot Cup of Joe
    ArchyFantasies
    Bad UFOs
    Mammoth Tales
    Matthew R. X. Dentith
    PaleoBabble
    Picture

    Categories

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

    Terms & Conditions

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

    Archives

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

    RSS Feed

Picture
Home  |  Blog  |  Books  | Contact  |  About Jason | Terms & Conditions
© 2010-2023 Jason Colavito. All rights reserved.

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