Review of America Unearthed S02E03 "Great Wall of Texas"

12/14/2013

Those who support the work of Scott Wolter and America Unearthed have criticized my analysis of the program, especially when I have made mention of the show’s use of racist, colonialist, and imperialist ideas from the nineteenth and twentieth centuries as though they were objective science. Specifically, I have received ample criticism that there is no room for discussions of racism when it comes to talking about history. I’m sure most of you have seen the recent exchange Wednesday on the Fox News Channel show The Kelly File in which Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly states that Santa Claus “just is” white and should not be depicted with any other skin tone, and that history and science validate the historical Jesus as a “white man.”

Although Kelly delivered a semi-apology on Friday, claiming her remarks were in “jest” —something not obvious from her on-air remarks—and that she was unfairly targeted for criticism due to her affiliation with Fox News, the flap demonstrates that there remains an ethnocentric subtext to cable television programming aimed at a wealthy white male demographic, the same audience both Fox News Channel and H2 target. It is not explicit racism so much as a blindness to points of view beyond the audience’s presumed culture and its traditional assumptions about who holds power, who lacks power, and who are the active and passive players on the world stage.

Can this be more obvious than in the assumption by the relatively small number of people in Rockwall, Texas, who advocate the artificial origin of the town's namesake wall that the clastic sandstone dykes running beneath their town are the work of Biblical giants, travelers from the Old World, or some other group symbolizing the power of traditionally dominant social groups such as the church, white Europeans, etc.? If you were to claim a natural formation as artificial, why would you attribute it to non-Native people? What’s wrong with the Native peoples of Texas? Oh, right: When the wall was first discovered in 1852, just a year after Rockwall was first settled, Texans were busy trying to wrest control of the land from the Native peoples who once inhabited it—both the native Caddo, who were longtime residents, and the Creek, forced there by Andrew Jackson’s Indian Removal policies, which in turn were justified with more the same: claims that the Native Americans killed off a lost white race that were the true legitimate owners of the land, to which white Americans were the natural and legal heirs.

As Jackson wrote in his annual Message to Congress on December 7, 1830:

In the monuments and fortresses of an unknown people, spread over the extensive regions of the west, we behold the memorials of a once powerful race, which was exterminated, or has disappeared, to make room for the existing savage tribes.

This, he said, is why the Indians had to be removed from America.

Oddly enough, today the Rockwall artificial-origin advocates have forgotten all this and speak darkly of a U.S. government cover-up of the monument and fortress of an unknown people they believe lies beneath their feet—exactly the kind of “monument” custom-made to justify U.S. government Indian removal policy during the era of its most active enforcement.

None of this deep background flits across the radar of America Unearthed. In fact, Scott Wolter and the producers of the show told the Rockwall Herald-Banner in May that they were not familiar with the Rockwall rock wall until someone from the town called their tip line (yes, they have a tip line) to ask them to investigate. According to the son of the property owner, a man named Adam Nix of the Collin County Historical Foundation contacted History about bringing the show to town. According to show director Andy Awes, more people called in to the show’s tip line to ask about the Rockwall rock wall than any other site or artifact. “By far the most tips we got were about this rock wall in Texas,” Awes told WFAA earlier this week. In the episode, Wolter said that translated to about “fifty emails,” which I guess says something about the reach of the program.

The town historical society, of course, plans to use the controversy over the wall to raise money, and a photographer plans to exploit the show’s popularity by selling photographs of the rock wall, which Committee Films prevented him from releasing until the show aired.

So what exactly was this rock wall? The following background discussion is adapted from text appearing in several of my previous blog posts about the Rockwall rock wall.

Background

In 1854, the town of Rockwall took its name from what local residents, who had been living there since 1852, believed to be a prehistoric stone wall which surrounded the town. While digging wells, they found large sections of rock that seemed to resemble manmade constructions. Several layers of buried rock were piled one atop the other, broken and cracked so that each layer resembled carefully stacked, irregular bricks, something like dry stone walls writ large. Many believed that this ancient construction was built by an unknown prehistoric people, possibly the same lost white race that supposedly built the Native American mounds.

However, in 1874, geologist Richard Burleson examined the rocks and concluded they were a natural formation. In 1901, geologist Robert T. Hull was even more specific, identifying the wall as clastic sand dykes. In 1909, the definitive study of the site was published in Science on behalf of the U.S. Geologic Survey. Geologist Sidney Paige surveyed the alleged wall and determined that it was made of sand dykes that intruded in Cretaceous rock, but moreover the “wall” was not a wall but rather a series of disconnected intrusions, with few if any connected sections.

It proves to be not a wall, but a number of disconnected sandstone dikes, strictly speaking, not surrounding the town, but trending in many directions. As exposures are few, they have been discovered in such scattered localities in the town’s environs as to suggest the idea that they were fragments of a ruined wall.

I have posted Paige’s full text in my Library.

More recent geological work has confirmed the same results over and over again down to the present. Additional examinations have occurred over the last century, including those conducted by W. L. Stephenson in 1927 and Robert T. Hill in 1975, alongside Martin Kelsey and Harold Denton’s 1980s visit to the site. These studies confirmed the findings from 1909, and at the time, Sidney Paige found very few people who still believed in a prehistoric human origin for the wall. That all changed with the arrival of a self-promoting tomb raider, reversing the accomplishments of 45 years of scientific research.

In 1925, a freelance tomb raider (“amateur archaeologist”) named Count Byron de Prorok, preparing to go off in search of King Solomon’s mines, swept into town and declared the wall the remains of a lost civilization. He specifically felt that the wall belonged to a North African culture, probably the Carthaginians (an offshoot of the Phoenicians). Later speculators claimed the walls resembled “pre-Inca” constructions of Peru. Not ready to let good publicity go to waste, Rockwall turned the wall into a tourist attraction and, for a time, even charged admission to see the wonder of the “lost race” during the Texas centennial celebrations.

The town’s real estate developers wanted to capitalize on the fame of the walls, so they hired geologists from the local universities to prove that the walls were the remains of a fortress of the pre-Flood Biblical giants, all the better to sell land to Christian extremists. The geologists told the real estate people that the wall was natural. Not satisfied, they asked the Institute for Creation Research to come prove the wall belonged to the giants of Genesis 6:4. Young earth creationist John Morris came out to survey the site, and even the creationist agreed that the wall was completely natural, though of course he felt it was deposited recently, according to Flood geology.

When even creationists gave up on the wall, it faded into obscurity except among New Age extremists. In 1999, architect John Lindsey told a New Age group that the wall was the remains of a 30,000-year-old civilization, and in 2001 New Age believers began to assert that a “channeled” being from another plane named Lady Kadjina had explained that the wall belonged to Atlantis. Such claims were confined to New Age spirituality until Frank Joseph tried to revive the wall’s archaeological significance in the pages of Ancient American. Frank Joseph, sounding much like the worst part of Andrew Jackson, wrote that he could not imagine any Native Americans capable of building rock walls; he proposed that the Romans built it in the first century CE. The idea of a historically Caucasian Texas continues.

Joseph’s article was published along with some of Scott Wolter’s own early work in The Lost Worlds of Ancient America, an anthology of the magazine’s stories, which Wolter apparently never read since he claimed to have never heard of the rock wall prior to this past spring.

The Episode

Our episode, America Unearthed S02E06 “Great Wall of Texas,” opens with two men digging a hole while dressed in what is supposed to pass for nineteenth century clothing. They uncover rocks that the production team has taken pains to make look like bricks. As the whole gets deeper, the production design emphasizes the brick-like shape of the (fake) wall (it’s just lines gouged in the dried mud), and the men—now three in number—stare in awe as CGI takes us deep into the earth to reveal and endless wall beneath them.

The opening credits roll, and we’re off to Rockwall, Texas, population 38,000. Wolter summarizes the history of the wall, claiming that the locals say it’s the work of an ancient civilization and stretches seven stories underground. Wolter meets with Adam Nix, who sent in the rock wall tip, and they go to look at a “reassembled” piece of the wall, which is an actual wall made from rocks that have been lobbed into bricks and reset with mortar between them. The music is rather loud as Wolter examines the rocks with a loupe and declares them to be rocks, and not very impressive. His facial expression concedes what the hour will prove: this is a natural formation. He looks at some photographs of the wall, and he says that the photos suggest that the wall seems artificial. Nix believes that the wall is artificial because it’s not “random” in shape—apparently he has never seen the Giant’s Causeway.

Nix instead says there was a conspiracy and a cover-up, asserting that experts abandoned excavations and changed their findings to prevent the government from seizing the land in the name of archaeological preservation.

Wolter goes to meet Kevin Richeson, who spent “a whole lot more” than $80,000 excavating the wall, which Wolter said he did “to get to the truth” about whether a civilization “other than the Native Americans” built the wall, which struck me as awfully racist. Wolter backs off on this by giving us three possibilities for who “really” built the wall, and two of them are Native American: the Caddo Tribe and the Paleoindians. The third choice is the Chinese. Since he knows this is a natural formation, he can happily give Native Americans a chance to compete for credit this time, making it easier to give the every other site to Europeans. Even though Wolter dismisses the Caddo due to his “gut” feeling, this still counts as progress as far as America Unearthed is concerned, though the on-screen promo for Seven Signs of the Apocalypse Wednesday at 9 doesn’t inspire confidence that H2 has turned a corner on its weird Christian conspiracy programming.

Wolter compares the wall to the Great Wall of China in order to estimate how long it took to build, but that presupposes that the wall is artificial, meaning that this will become a moot point by the end of the hour.

As we head into the first commercial Richeson tells Wolter that no permit is needed to excavate the wall because “this is Texas.” Apparently under Texas law, an archaeological permit is needed only for a site designated as a State Antiquities Landmark, and the rock wall, being a natural formation, is not a state landmark.

At the 15:00 mark, Richeson agrees to excavate the wall as the on-screen graphics promote Scott Wolter’s book. Richeson said no one was willing to make a “definitive” statement about the wall’s origins, but as we have seen, everyone from the U.S. Geological Survey to creationists have made definitive statements that the wall is a natural formation. Richeson seems to want to wait to get the answer he’s been hoping for.

The two men discuss their excavation plans, and we are meant to enjoy watching Scott Wolter gawking at heavy machinery because this is a manly show meant for real men.

At the local historical society, the historian, Sheri Fowler, repeats what we’ve already heard for a third or fourth time, and I’m thinking this show has nothing more to say than the sand dyke looks like a wall. The historian discusses Khun de Prorok’s ideas and the Biblical giant idea, but as we go to commercial no one mentions earlier geologists’ work on the site. In fact, the show takes pains to try to pretend that no qualified geologists have looked at the wall before Wolter, only kooks and cranks. Coming back we have another recap (the third so far) along with Wolter’s claim that giants are real, replaying clips from his “investigation” into Minnesota giants, which, I remind you, found no giants but is somehow meant as proof that giants existed. Wolter doesn’t believe in giants in this case, though.

Wolter travels out to the historian’s property to view another section of the wall, but he just keeps repeating the same summary and speculation over and over again. This show is a massive waste of time, containing about five minutes of content stretched over an hour.

Wolter does a scratch test on a rock to see if it’s soft enough for people to have built with, although this is a waste of time. Wolter looks at still more photographs of the wall, which simply repeats what we have heard about five times in 32 minutes of air time.

The next day Wolter is “pumped” as he reviews AGAIN what we’ve just seen. We’re treated to more manly men digging with manly machines so we can to another commercial break.

At the 38:00 mark, we get yet another on-screen recap as more loving shots of the heavy machinery lead to pretty much nothing. Richeson claims that the wall is aligned to the solstice, and Wolter likens this to his greatest hits from season one—once again mistaking astronomical alignments for “archaeoastronomy,” which is the study of ancient peoples’ astronomical alignments, not the alignments themselves. But instead of trying to test this, we get to watch Wolter drive heavy machinery because he is a real man and real men don’t excavate with shovels or chisels. They aren’t afraid to completely destroy the alegedly “most important” site in America and all its context with a backhoe.

On the third day of digging, Wolter returns to an even bigger hole, and Wolter says that the wall looks like “modern masonry,” though it doesn’t look much like it to me. I guess I’m not as imaginative. Wolter has invited John Geissman, a professor of geosciences, to look for magnetic signatures in the rocks created at the time the rocks formed due to the magnetic field of the earth. If all the “bricks” have the same magnetic orientation, it would suggest that rocks were formed in situ; should their magnetic signatures not match, it would suggest that the rocks have been disturbed at some point, perhaps by artificial construction. Obviously, if they had found anything useful, it would have been a major news story and the lead for the show, not the last few minutes of a wheezing, sclerotic hour of repetitive speculation.

Wolter repeats what we’ve heard before for yet another time as we go to commercial. Somehow italics aren’t strong enough to convey the sheer anger I feel at the repetition, but I’ve run out of ways to be more emphatic.

With only minutes left in the hour, we return from the final break to listen to Wolter recap his previous recaps, desperately trying to hide the fact that you could turn in here at the 53:00 mark and have missed absolutely nothing in this tedious hour, right down to the mistaken use of the word archaeoastronomy. He never does bother to measure the angle to the wall to see if it really does line up with the solstice since he knows the truth long before the viewer does.

Back at Geissman’s lab, Geissman take a turn recapping what he already told us, and then Geissman reveals the results of his paleomagnetism test. Dramatic music swells over images of equipment whirring and blinking. Suddenly the truth comes out: Oh, right, we still have four minutes left, so he can’t let us know yet. Instead, we return to the dig site to listen to Wolter break the news to Adam Nix and Keven Richeson. The wall is natural… just like we’ve believed since 1874 and knew for certain since 1909!

What a waste of time!

Wolter believes that the wall is an 85-million-year old sand dyke, and he could have found that out in a few minutes with a literature review. “Sometimes nature plays tricks and pulls a fast one on us,” Wolter says. “This is one of those times.”

Sometimes TV pulls a fast one on us, like passing off a five-minute story as a one-hour documentary. This was one of those times.

Aftermath

After the program ended, the cast and crew threw a wrap party with local dignitaries. These included the 90-year-old chairman emeritus of the U.S. House of Representatives Science Committee, Ralph Hall (R-Tex.), and the mayor, David Sweet, who maintained that science would never suppress Rockwall’s efforts to market the rock wall to fringe history believers and creationists:

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

That’s the spirit! Who needs science when you have something better: faith and money?

188 Comments

Only Me

12/14/2013 02:28:02 pm

Thank goodness I wasn't the only one squirming through this episode! The clearly staged talk with the historian was so painfully drawn out, it made my skin crawl.

I guess Wolter has never seen shale or any natural rock that forms in layers. You can go to parts of Arkansas, and see vast areas where the rock is arranged in layers of various thickness. I suppose that means until a paleomagnetic test is done, these formations MUST be the handiwork of ancient people.

I live about two hours from Rockwall, and if they're trying to drum up tourism, they aren't having much luck. I doubt this episode will change their fortunes.

Joyce D

12/15/2013 02:56:37 pm

The most interesting take away quote fron this show is from the contractor. Scott was concerned about getting permission from State and federal authorities to dig.

" This is Texas, if we want to did, we dig". OK

Texas is not subject to any regulations.

I guess that is why they catrasrophes on unregulated businesses on a regular basis.

12/15/2013 03:09:33 pm

Actually, that was a bit of over-played theater. Texas is like every other state; you do need a permit before you go a-digging willy-nilly. Underground fiber-optic cables, gas and electric lines, water lines, etc.

I just took away that since Kevin owned a construction-type business, he probably already had the required permits.

If I may ask, what is "catrasrophes"?

Rev. Phil Gotsch

12/16/2013 02:41:10 pm

A "catrasrophe" is when the family cat barfs up a HUGE nasty hair ball on the newly laid carpet BEFORE it has had the stain repellant treatment ...

12/16/2013 03:41:25 pm

Now that's funny!

I thought that was the word, but the sentence, "I guess that is why they catastrophes...." doesn't make sense. Must be a word or two missing.

12/16/2013 08:45:42 pm

I like feedback for what I say, and I misspelled catastrophe. That is not important. I really like being here with you guys, and what i said is right.

Texas is above the law. We do whatever the hell we want.

12/16/2013 09:06:30 pm

C'mon guys you are my friends. I spelled catrastrophe wrong. Does that mean the point of my comment is wrong? I don't spelling a word wrong negates what i said.

This is Texas, we do whatever the hell we want to. We aren't bound by the EPA or OSHA.

12/16/2013 09:23:37 pm

I know how to spell catastrophe: George W Bush.

12/17/2013 03:59:37 am

Just some harmless pranking, Joyce, no worries.

"Permits?! We don't need no steenking permits!"

Johnny

12/18/2013 03:24:25 pm

I am in no way a rock specialist or a specialist in geography, nor archaeology. But I believe in common sense. And I believe in massive cover-ups,,,, tho I am NOT a conspiracy theorist. BUT I believe that this rock wall is ancient and not created by nature,,, especially in STRONG view of ninety degree angles where walls meet!!
What about the Peruvian pyramid in North Georgia that the government would prefer no one know about?

Who knows how old this country really is,,, or what civilizations were here so long ago!!!!

Dave

1/22/2014 03:49:30 am

Any one ever read the Book of Mormon not as a religious pursuit but for proposed history about the Nephites and the Lamanites. That would explain where the rock wall came from.

uno

1/28/2014 06:25:18 am

lol

CFC

12/14/2013 02:30:40 pm

You mean an ACADEMIC was brought in to find the truth???

Coridan Miller

12/14/2013 02:33:05 pm

I reeeealllly want to see him do an episode on Cahokia. That would be a true test of any racist tendencies.

charlie

12/14/2013 05:07:06 pm

An episode of this waste of time program came on right after the AAT's had their wasted program on Aliens and big mountains. It was late, I was set to sleep and the wife said, "Oh no. Not that damn show." and promptly turned the TV set OFF. Bless her, while she does enjoy the AAT crap, she refuses to watch Scott since she and I suffered through an entire episode last season.
Sorry Jason, but I laughed almost the entire time I spent reading this review. The way you described it and what I read as your tone of voice was hilarious. I do hope that does not offend you. Maybe you meant to be humorous, I did catch on early how bored to tears you must have been at the seemingly endless, useless repetition. My word sir, you have a cast iron brain to endure this sort of garbage week after endless week of AU and AAT mess and add the "off beat" (to be very polite) books and magazine articles you review/report on here. Bravo for a job very well done sir. You have my highest regard.
Oh the abuse a scholar and debunker must endure. You are a much braver man than I am in regard to this stuff, and I was a US Marine and a Vietnam war vet.

12/14/2013 05:12:06 pm

I forgot to add this. The episode that aired after the Aliens and big hills (mountains) was NOT this episode, obviously. I didn't catch what that was about as my wife, thankfully hit the power button before the show title came up, we just saw the UA opening and it was "lights out for Scotty".

Varika

12/14/2013 05:59:34 pm

I, at least, NEEDED all those commercial breaks--to the point that I didn't fast-forward through them even though I was watching on DVR! I needed them to keep myself from throwing up in disgust. (Also because the commercials were more entertaining AND informative than the show.)

I swear he's doing these first few episodes of finding-nothing to build credibility, so that when he gets to his actual point this season, and goes, "Oh, it's REAL!" he can go, "No, no, I'm NOT that gullible, LOOK, I said THOSE things weren't real!" Unfortunately, the uninformed will fall for it. >.<

He's been using your blog, Jason, as a learning tool to sell his crocks of shit, as the lengthy joke once went, as "It Is Good."

BillUSA

12/14/2013 06:24:25 pm

I logged on here after watching 15 minutes of this episode because after all, Wolter excels at either a) aggravating the hell out of me when he's not b) putting me to sleep. I felt sleepy this time and instead of going to bed like I should, I decided to come to your site to see if you had reviewed his latest "offering" to science.

I'm glad you did. My dear Mother admonished me for being a grouch because of my assertions that Wolter, Giorgio T., Childress, von Daniken, et al are frauds (might as well toss History Channel in with the bunch). My response is always that if I know someone who is being taken in by a fraud, especially if said "mark" is someone as important to me as my Mother, I'm gonna let them know it in no uncertain terms. She says that they have the right to express a different viewpoint and I counter that they're making money duping some into believing they know enough to be able to write books.

Anyway, I never did make the rich white man connection to Fox but I can see it now. I often find myself defending the channel a lot of times because they are the minority and Liberals - in my view - really aren't too concerned with the decay of our society and country. The extreme left are uncivilized savages while the extreme right are too secular and dogmatic.

I consider myself an Independent who tries to understand both sides of the aisle in the hope of finding a common ground that currently does not exist in this partisan political nightmare. I was born in 1960 and grew up watching the news. I recall vividly the coverage of the riots in Birmingham and Los Angeles and despite my upbringing in a racist environment I've managed to become one who fights the good fight as an individual.

So I was a little taken aback at some of your opening comments because I didn't expect them nor (more importantly) was I beyond the ignorance which made it possible to have my eyes opened a bit more this morning. I still learn from your website Jason and that's what we're all interested in here.

Coridan Miller link

12/14/2013 11:24:42 pm

Extreme right is too secular?

12/16/2013 11:46:49 am

Thanks for pointing that out. I should have stated "non-secular".

12/15/2013 05:29:30 am

"really aren't concerned with the decay of our society and country."

Maybe because they, like me, don't believe any such thing is going on. After all, Socrates bitched about the same thing at the height of Athens' power, and died WELL before Athens "fell."

"The extreme left are uncivilized savages while the extreme right are too secular and dogmatic."

Uh....wow. WOW. You do know that 'common ground' is a lot easier to find when you aren't so scathingly dismissive of any viewpoint that isn't your own, right?

12/16/2013 11:59:24 am

You're entitled to your opinion. No sense engaging in the polarized "it is - it isn't" argument about the state of our society. But I will say that anyone who supports post-contraceptive abortion is a blatant savage no matter what the Supreme Court has decided.

Only in circumstances where the woman or child may be at risk if the pregnancy is allowed to go the full term should abortion be a medical option.

Oh, my bad. The stretch marks, the widened hips, the stigma of giving away a child, or the inconvenience of having to raise one are more important than a child's life. I find it arrogant and selfish to decide if a person should live or die because someone doesn't feel like raising them.

Vanessa Hooper

3/22/2014 11:46:30 am

Superbly put!

3/22/2014 11:50:30 am

Superbly put Varika! And what the hell does abortion or politics have to do with the rock wall or Scott Wolter? Shouldn't he be spouting his views on the Fox News comments section?

Oldfart

12/15/2013 01:06:48 pm

The extreme right is too secular? You must live in some alternate universe.

12/16/2013 12:01:17 pm

I don't live in one, but my writing skills may come from an alternate universe. I stand humbly corrected.

boredguy

1/6/2014 06:38:34 pm

"Only in circumstances where the woman or child may be at risk if the pregnancy is allowed to go the full term should abortion be a medical option."
What about rape victims? Should every female start taking contraceptives as they approach puberty in case they get raped?

Martin

12/14/2013 07:08:37 pm

The season's first episode preceded this show, so, happily I was distracted from watching much about the wall while looking up info about Wolter's fake stones from episode one. However, I did look up in time to Wolter's speculation of the number of Cowboy Stadiums which would fit into the space inside the wall(s).

I'm here because I found myself talking to the TV during the broadcast of the Ark, which led me online to check out the program's "facts." As a result, I found this blog. I believe my research was more in-depth than was used in AU.

RCC

12/14/2013 10:29:03 pm

I've tried to enjoy this series, but this episode may be the end for me. I knew the "wall" was natural, but I couldn't resist seeing what kind of bizarre conspiracy twist Wolter would spin on it. And it was SO obvious that EVERY piece of dialogue in the episode was rehearsed. Sadly, there are people who watch this show & take this baloney as FACT, people whose only info on history comes from H2.

Paul Cargile

12/15/2013 12:26:45 am

In context, Megan Kelly was responding to Slate blogger Aisha Harris' disenchantment with a white skinned Santa Claus that wasn't a member of her race--an epic fail of judgement of character, not color on her part--and her ridiculous suggestion that Santa be changed from a man to a penguin (which are often black and white in color and fail to represent the other skin tones of other races who also may feel inadequate and awkward about white Santas).

12/15/2013 05:32:31 am

...not to mention that it would necessitate a polar shift for poor Santa--literally--since penguins don't live at the North Pole. Wouldn't making him a polar bear make more sense, since they can be white, brown, or any shade in between depending on conditions?

Though one admits that in either case, it would be a hell of a lot harder for Santa to drive a sleigh.

RLewis

12/15/2013 01:22:39 am

I was so bored I couldn't stop noticing SW's clothes. I realize segments may have to be rearranged to "tell the story", but can't they give SW 3 or 4 different shirts to wear to give us the illusion of different days of filming? I know it's nitpicking, but it's just lazy and sloppy production efforts.

Keith Jackson

12/15/2013 01:24:07 am

I also watched this on DVR, simply because I wanted to be able to fast forward through all the crap. It didn't take me long to watch this episode. I thought that Scott's comment that he was going to make a determination about whether it was natural or man made. I also got a kick out of the comment about it being a cover up. After all, the town and county are only called, "Rock Wall". It kind of reminds me of a comment made on one of the shows, "exposing" the Masons and other groups. One of the Mason spokesmen made the comment that if they are a secret society, that they must be the worst one since you can drive by any lodge and see their meeting dates and times posted out front.

On the comments made by Megyn Kelly, from what I remember about the history of Santa Claus, based on the reports I had to write in elementary school, I thought he was based on Saint Nicholas who was Turkish. As for Jesus, it describes his appearance in the Bible and he was not "white", as we know it.

Doubting Thomas

12/15/2013 02:53:58 am

The "appearance" of Christ. That can only ever be an opinion and nothing else.

12/15/2013 05:41:14 am

To a degree, yes, Thomas, but we CAN draw certain conclusions. The first is that Jesus was not a lily-white European. Both of his parents were Jews in Israel. They would have had Persian, Greek, Roman, Egyptian, and of course HEBREW influences on their appearance, but pretty much nothing "Aryan," which is how he's often portrayed. We can pretty much carve in stone that he would have looked Middle Eastern, though of course we can't state specifics of eye, hair, or skin colors. We can be fairly sure, though, that his skin would have been much darker at least in the face than is generally portrayed, since his was a wandering ministry, which means sun exposure--and no SPF 80 sunscreen in sight for another 2 millennia. We know he didn't have an unusual hair or eye-color, though, for his area, because that would surely have been mentioned, probably as some sign of God's Favor On His Son. So he probably had brown to black hair and brown to dark grey or black eyes. So yeah, go to your local Pakistani community and you can get a pretty good idea about what he would have looked like, or at least the range into which he would have fallen.

Joyce D.

12/15/2013 02:47:25 pm

Megyn Kelly on Fox has stated that Jesus was white. That should put that argument to rest.

Manny

12/15/2013 01:59:43 pm

Correct me if I wrong but I don't believe that the Turkish people had arrived in Asia Minor during the era in which Saint Nicholas lived.

Michael Haynes

12/15/2013 03:03:55 am

You are definitely right, Jason -- this was five minutes' worth of content stretched into an entire hour. However, I couldn't help but notice how Scott's face lit up when historian Sheri Fowler told him about the rock wall being constructed by giants. It seemed to me that he really wanted to pursue that angle, but it also seems that he couldn't because it would discredit his agenda-within-an-agenda that I've noticed developing lately on "America Unearthed."

Like last week's episode on the Denver Airport, the Rock Wall is another viewer-tip Scott went to investigate, and, just like the airport, it's the second viewer tip that he's debunked. Not only does he think academics are full of malarky, he's now telling us that even his fans are full of it also. Perhaps it's a tactic to bash other amateur investigators to prove that he's the only person to be trusted with mysterious sites and conspiracies, or perhaps he's geniunely annoyed at being pulled away from his real quest (the Knights Templar-Freemason conspiracy), but it still appears to me to be a risky strategy for keeping his show on the air.

I can tell from your review how frustrated you were to watch this episode, but I think you (and we) will have a more enjoyable time next week. In the promo for the upcoming episode, I saw that Scott was in Washington D.C., and I heard him utter the magic words, "Godess worship."

Robert Jacoby

12/15/2013 03:37:23 am

Wow, Jason, you've gone full into Scott Wolter mode. First off, you bring in a completely unrelated Megyn Kelly (and it's Megyn, not Megan) rant over something completely unrelated to tie up some Vast Right Wing Conspiracy or some such. Second, you divorce Megyn's satirical rant from the context of the Slate article -- and given that the modern Santa is the product of Victorian times married to American advertisement, he would be white.

What does any of that have to do with the episode?

As for the episode itself, nowhere did I hear anything about the Bible, so I'm not sure where you bring Christianity into it. Unless you have just as much of an agenda as Scott does and need to work your bigoted views (and yes, you come across as an anti-Christian bigot) where-ever and whenever you can.

But back to the episode. Decent critique. There really isn't much to work with here, just dig a hole and see what is there. Obviously the town was hoping for some controversy so they could market it to tourists. Could there have been such a man made structure? 7 stories and 19 square miles is a bit much, but the Aztecs, Mayans and Incas did work in stone -- which brings up the question of why didn't Scott at least include the Aztecs in possible builders as Mexico is right next door to Texas. Indeed, how extensive were trading networks among indigenous Americans? Now that would be an interesting season for AU. But hey, at least Scott actually employed science here and determined that there was no ancient civilization that's being covered up. BTW, the first guy says that everyone talks about the rock wall, and then a sentence later says there's a coverup. So everyone is talking about something that no one is talking about? Yeesh.

But next weeks promo brings back the Scott we know and make fun of: the Vikings' Vinland is actually Martha's Vineyard! Because Vinland = Vineyard. I

Jason Colavito link

12/15/2013 04:27:14 am

Full on Scott Wolter?

I've fixed Kelly's name, but I take issue with the idea that saying Santa and Jesus are inherently white is unrelated to fringe claims about white dominance in prehistoric times. It is an example of the kind of ethnocentric thinking exemplified in fringe history claims. It was not at all clear that Kelly was being satirical when she made her statement, and saying Jesus was white has nothing to do with the Slate article. And what do you mean Santa "should be" white?

I'm also not sure what problem you see with my mention of Christianity. The "giants" under discussion in the show are promoted by Rockwall residents as Bible giants, and that is a documented fact. Rather than call me anti-Christian, let me again bring up the point about ethnocentrism and remind you that evangelical extremists who believe giants and fallen angels danced across Texas are a minority among Christians; my large Catholic family never had any truck with such claims, nor do most mainstream Christian groups.

12/15/2013 05:10:22 am

Let me correct my own error. You said "would" be white, not "should" be white, an important difference.

12/15/2013 08:49:35 am

Thanks for the reply. I've heard about the giants before, just never in the context of them being Biblical. But then in my family we made fun of those denying evolution -- on our way to church.

I do understand about being ethnocentric, just a little while ago on History of the World in 2 Hours, when China made contact with the Roman Empire it was described as China joining the world. What?

But the modern Santa Claus is pretty much a Charles Dickens creation, refined by the Coca Cola company. Based upon tales of the old St. Nicholas, but not really the same guy. But if there's a suggestion to replace Santa Claus with Santa Penguin, that does deserve sarcasm.

When I first saw the promos for the show last year, I had high hopes, am extremely disappointed. But at least last night he did discredit the conspiracy theory.

12/15/2013 08:54:13 am

Of course it's a stupid idea to replace Santa with a penguin, and of course Santa was traditional depicted as white. But that isn't what Kelly said: She said Santa "just is" white, as though it were an inherent and essential fact, and she added that Jesus was white, too. That's what went beyond a sarcastic response in my mind.

Brandon

12/15/2013 04:35:43 am

Jason I really enjoy your critiques of these speculative and wacky entertainments (America Unearthed, Ancient Aliens) attempting to pass themselves off as anything other than that.

Mr. Robert Jacoby is spot on though in his remarks as to your own agendas and the webs you spin to create some sort of racist pseudo religious master plan.

That some of these shows are so shoddily contrived that they leave out logical questions or missing data points does not strike me as a "racist agenda/ white christian plot" so much as it confirms the lack of honest intellectual efforts to truly investigate a subject.

Intellectual laziness in the pursuit of making a TV show is just that, nothing more.

12/15/2013 05:12:52 am

I think you're confusing racist master plan for ethnocentrism, which is more my point: they see the world through a prism of a particular demographic's cultural assumptions and reflect that in their storytelling. The laziness you mention is reflected in the ethnocentric ideas they never challenge because they never stop to think about them.

12/15/2013 08:05:14 am

Great review once again Jason!!!
It seems that the show has an identity crisis.
I noticed that on the America Unearthed face book fan page that someone claims they sent an email complaining to Scott Wolter about the New World Order episode and stated that Wolter replied and blamed the producers.

The Other J.

12/19/2013 10:21:06 am

Racism vs Ethnocentrism

I think that's probably an important distinction to make. It's difficult for anyone not to be somewhat ethnocentric, unless you were fortunate enough to be raised in a multi-ethnic culture, or spent time out of your environment among other cultures, or are just some kind of enlightened saint. If you've always existed in a specifically-described environment, it's hard to even know if you're not recognizing other perspectives that you may not be considering (See: Plato's Cave, or Flatland). You wouldn't necessarily expect people in central Sumatra to consider people from central Saskatchewan when developing their entertainment programming, and other cultures can certainly be ethnocentric -- just look at the way China is handling the question of Uighur identity.

Where it gets a little tetchy is when an audience's ethnocentrism is presumed and played up to because the producer is counting on earning money off the audience's assumed inability or unwillingness to see beyond their own ethnocentric tendencies (whether the producer is a writer, radio host, an actual producer, whatever). So you get things like playing up the early European exploration of North America that displays a massive blind spot for the millions of Native Americans that were already here, or that Destination America channel that seems to want to recycle much of the same paranormal, paranoid and conspiratorial material in a package that simultaneously congratulates the audience on their down-home old-fashioned values, whatever those are. (And of course that kind of ethnocentric target-marketing stretches into cable news networks, but I don't want to get into that -- it's a tedious enough subject that gets rehashed by plenty of others in these comments. I'm not missing that point, I'm just ignoring it.)

The problem is a weird feedback loop that develops, because the blind ethnocentrism can either affirm or confirm certain racist ideologies, or even give out-and-out racists new material to use. And then you end up with things like America Unearthed being used as a touchstone text by Stormfront. I don't think we have any reason to believe that Scott Wolter would truck with those people (although doesn't Wolter's book use ethnographic work from a Nazi?), but apparently racists have no problem jumping on the Scott Wolter bandwagon. The same ethnocentric blindspot that misses the millions of Native Americans that were here also seems to miss the openly racist crowd that uses Scott's material to argue in favor of white superiority over other ethnic groups in North America.

And the problem seems to be this accidental or just actively blind nexus; that Venn diagram would show ethnocentrism and racism overlapping on the H2 circle. Some things on AU and other H2 shows that veer into racist territory seem to do so blindly out of a thoughtless effort to play to a specific demographic without recognizing what the message may actually consist of, or that message's ramifications. A more responsible program would make an effort to recognize their own ethnocentric tendencies and at least provide some acknowledgment that maybe -- just maybe -- other cultures could have developed civilations on their own, and that could happen alongside European exploration and expansion. By not doing that, they play into the narrative that somehow white people did all the civilizing. (Besides, the whole question of "white" is nebulous at best; go back a few generations and further, and so-called "white" people were at each other's throats for not being the right ethnicity of "white." If you weren't the right kind of "white," you were just another savage, which makes the whole point of a "white culture" moot.)

Gunn

12/15/2013 04:38:02 am

It looks like Scott is turning things around. I like the idea that he is turning into a part-time de-bunker, giving Jason a hand in all of this.

Both the Denver episode and the Wall episode were covered previously by other shows last year, but at least Scott was able to come in and give definitive answers. I think the last two shows have improved his credibility--and just in time for next week's show about where Vinland may have been.

There is no exactitude about Vinland yet, such as how large the area of Vinland covered, even, but I hope the show puts a good spotlight on the issue. Clearly, some visiting this blog need help in overcoming the idea that Vinland either didn't exist, or that it was north (Newfoundland) of where is probably really was...based on grapes...real grapes, not to be found in Newfoundland.

This is troublesome to many, because it indicates that Vinland was probably south on the East Coast far enough to be considered within the borders of current America, and this further shows that some of the earliest builders of our dear Country, besides the Native Americans, were Europeans of Scandinavian background. More needs to be known about Vinland, and how it impacted our future history.

I look forward to next week's show. By the way, I thought that both the Wall episode and the Denver episode were nicely put together in a way to generate interest while watching them. Better photography, good spokespersons, a slight bit of drama....

Oh, and I was impressed by how well Scott operating that heavy machinery. (Not just anybody can do that.)

really?

12/17/2013 03:16:15 am

Medieval warm period.
You and Wolter must have matching hot chocolate
educations.

Gunn link

12/17/2013 05:42:28 am

Who are you, really?

You come with an insult, not even knowing that the medieval warm period had already been in decline by the time of the East Coast activities we're talking about. The Greenlanders finally gave up during the Fourteenth Century, and it had been getting colder and colder for some hundreds of years.

Grapes and salmon explain where Vinland was. Hot chocolate educations? You managed to insult two people in one short sentence, which seems funny since you, yourself, don't understand how the climate played into the discussed scenario. Look into it...wise up...learn from Gunn.

Kate

12/17/2013 01:36:06 pm

From all of the climate data I have seen, the peak of the Medieval Warm Period seems to be just after 1100C.E., after the inferred settlement year of Vinland. The decline in temperature after the peak seems to take a couple hundred of years, and averages about a degree Celsius until about 1400C.E. This all depends on if we're talking about air temperatures, peak August temperatures, sea surface temperatures, alkenone temperature reconstruction, location of climate proxy and so on and so forth. We can argue about the causes of small scale climate change not related to Milankovitch cycles and solar insolation, or the sensitivity of the Arctic versus other areas to temperature change if you like, but the global average temperatures appear relatively constant for a couple hundred years. And as you pointed out, Gunn, it wasn't until the 1400s that the Norse settlements had problems and the more extreme-condition-adept Inuit took back Greenland where they had lived for thousands of years.

It should also be pointed out that Iceland, settled by Norse and possibly Gaelic explorers, experienced its first wave of settlers just earlier than those in Greenland. Iceland, which has a climate more like that of Newfoundland than it does Greenland which was and still is (at least for now) covered by an ice sheet, has salmon spawning grounds, as does eastern Canada, and Greenland is famous for salmon feeding grounds which can easily be fished with nets from small boats. As for finding grapes, indigenous North American grapes were found in abundance on the Ile d'Orleans in the 1500s, which indicates that a couple hundred years earlier it's completely feasible indigenous grapes (or berries, which the Scandinavians used for "wine" often) were present in Newfoundland.

12/18/2013 05:29:00 am

Yes, thank you, that makes good sense, and I've learned something new. Also, the climate being warmer at the time Vinland was named (around 1000 AD) helps us understand better that grapes grew farther north for a while.

The next thing I would like to better understand is just what the area known as Vinland represented, in terms of geographical proportions. I wonder, too, if the area considered Vinland may have been enlarged over the years to include areas farther south. So then, even as the ability of nature to grow grapes changed, so then maybe the land area considered Vinland changed, too, reflected by temperature changes or other factors. I'm merely hinting that perhaps the area known as Vinland may have been enlarged, from a small settlement spot around 1000 AD, to a much larger area for the ensuing hundreds of years.

For example, the infamous KRS speaks of Vinland being east. The infamous Maine runestones indicate "Vinland-like" information which seems to be related to Scandinavian presence farther down the East Coast than the St. Lawrence Seaway, for instance.

I hope American Unearthed adds some new insight into the picture. There seems to be a lot of debate about exactly where Vinland was, and what its "maximum" boundaries may have been, which ultimately seems important enough for further enquiry.

Thanks for taking the time to explain about the medieval temperature changes, which will probably end up being discussed again here in a few days, at the airing of the next American Unearthed. I hope you stick around for the upcoming, probably heated discussion about Vinland.

12/15/2013 07:53:03 am

*sigh*

A reminder … The H2 "America Unearthed" TV show … is a TV show … So, yes … The producer and director DO make sure that it fits snugly into the assigned scheduled time slot (duh) … That's how TV shows are done …

As to "manly men" doing "manly" things … Ummm … Well … So what … ???

As a personal friend and professional colleague of Scott Wolter for 25+ years, I can indeed attest to Scott's interest in "guy" stuff … He played semi-pro football … He's a hockey player … He works out … So what … ??? Is somebody … *jealous* … ???

12/15/2013 08:49:38 am

One of my very good friends is a professional hockey player, so I doubt very much that if I were so inclined that I choose to be jealous of Wolter's athletic prowess. My father was a firefighter and my college friends were the varsity football team. I am well-versed in the traditional "manly" virtues. I was making fun of the program's focus on heavy machinery to fill time in a program that clearly lacked enough material to "fit snugly" into the assigned time slot. They were stretching and it showed.

12/15/2013 10:30:04 am

Okay … You concede that your several comments (above) about "manly men" doing "manly" stuff was … just blowing smoke … for whatever reasons of your own ...

12/15/2013 10:35:43 am

You are one of the most uncharitable clergymen I have ever met. Every comment is laced with a barb. Would you prefer that I speculate on the psychology of your Scott Wolter hero worship? Take your own advice: Since you want us to view this show as an entertainment product, stop taking offense when someone makes fun of its attempts at being "entertaining."

12/15/2013 10:43:05 am

I dunno, Jason …

YOU went on at some length (above) about "manly men" doing "manly" things … Apparently you thought that nobody would find that … *odd* …

Lighten up ...

12/15/2013 10:48:33 am

But … Jason, I mean, REALLY …

YOU are the guy who is try-try-TRYING to SHRED the reputation and ASSASSINATE the character of my personal friend and professional colleague …

I am not the one who is lacking "charity" in these bits ...

12/15/2013 11:09:19 am

How on earth is it "shredding" the character of your friend to critically evaluate the product he presents to the world? Or to evaluate the specific claims he makes about the secret Christian heresy in Oreo cookies, or why he believes a Nazi sympathizer is our best, most objective source of information about the Viking conquest of the Western hemisphere?

Do you not understand the difference between the man and the message, between Wolter's personality (which, frankly, has never been charitable to me: see his attempt to get AETN to sue me) and his deficiencies of scholarship?

When you put forward ideas, criticism follows. It is how ideas are refined and how bad ideas are rejected. When I published my first book, I received some nasty reviews, but I didn't turn it into a crusade bash the reviewers for finding fault, nor did I try to sue anyone for criticizing me; I absorbed the criticism and used it to make my work better. My next two books received overwhelmingly positive reviews.

12/15/2013 03:08:23 pm

As I have already posted in another of your blogs (more that once) any of the findings and conclusions, methods and suppositions, of the H2 "America Unearthed" TV shows certainly can and should be discussed, hashed over, critiqued, etc., until Jesus Returns …

BUT … that is a DIFFERENT thing than going after the TV show HOST -- Scott Wolter -- himself …

THAT is and consistently has been my point …

Mark L

12/16/2013 01:04:25 am

Reverend Phil, as a Christian (presumably), what do you think of your friend Scott's theories about Oreo cookies and their Masonic code?

12/19/2013 11:16:08 am

Waitaminnit --

How is filling air time with Scott playing with machines NOT part of the show's methodology? They don't have anything of substance to show and not enough content to fill the hour, so they tread water by having Scott do something which they presume will speak to their manly, white, middle American male manly audience.

If I'm the producer of that show, and I've consistently done that, then that's part of my production methodology. And Scott's a part of that. If he wants to be seen as doing something more serious than playing with big boy Tonka toys, he should come up with more serious content.

(And I say this as an athlete who has real problems with people in academia presuming that athletes can't have a freakin' brain. Nor do I get off on manly men trying to appeal to my athletic side -- I can turn to Spike if I want a fake testosterone fix by proxy. And damn right, I'm watching rugby tonight.)

scott meek

1/18/2014 03:47:50 pm

not being a avid follower of either you or Scott Wolters..your analysis did come off as jealousy..criticism of the facts and how the show is executed seems fine..but the personal barbs ?? just puts your obvious hard work in the same bin of those you are exposing

Cathleen Anderson

12/16/2013 06:06:29 am

I didn't think the comments on "manliness" were innappropriate.

As far as Scott Wolter goes: He claims to be a scientist, but he doesn't act like one. I feel like he is as trustworthy as Michelle Bachman and Megyn Kelly.

12/16/2013 06:41:06 am

The comments weren't even aimed at Wolter, but rather to how the show chose to portray him. "America Unearthed" is a show that the network itself is proud to say is targeted at wealthy males aged 25-54. Pointing out how the show is appealing to that audience, and making fun of how silly it looks, should hardly be controversial.

It's what gets me: When I criticize the facts in the show, I'm condemned for not treating the show as entertainment. When I criticize the show's production design and ham-fisted attempts to be entertaining, I'm condemned for not sticking to facts!

Dave Lewis

12/17/2013 12:09:07 pm

"professional colleague of Scott Wolter"

That is an oxymoron!!!!!!! There isn't anything "professional" about Scott Wolter except maybe a professional huckster.

Dave Lewis

12/17/2013 03:46:54 pm

Dave Lewis …

You obviously have no idea what you're talking about …

*whatever*

white guy

12/15/2013 08:24:39 am

I guess you're only "racist" if you are white...lol. Ridiculous.. Grow up people.. Even though I know that's not going to happen.. Its ok for every other race to talk shit about white people...but heaven forbid a white person say..anything.. I mean, im racist for saying "heaven" forbid..right? What is the difference between slavery in this country than any other country in the world and throughout history? I think slavery is fuckin stupid but we are ALL slaves!.. To money and survival of the fittest people of every culture.. If you dont like the show..fine.. If you have your own opinion..fine.. But all this racist bullshit is so stupid.. We could have endless war of every race because of all the stupid shit we have done on every side.. If you dont like white people.. Deal with it.. But quit blaming us for every little thing you can to make yourself feel better.. Its not helping..infact it makes it worse..

12/15/2013 08:35:44 am

And on a side note.. Ive never seen the show.. I came on this website to see a review because I live in Texas not far from Rockwall.. I know of the legends of Rockwall and heard of this show that was supposed to " lay to rest" the legend..lol.. I really wouldnt belive mainstream media about anything..but all i found was this racist bullshit.. I mean the actual show cant be any worse than this site..

12/15/2013 08:51:38 am

I also criticize Afrocentrism, a racist belief focused on black superiority. I did a multi-part series on Ivan Van Sertima, a leading Afrocentrist. But I don't expect you took the time to find that out before criticizing me for offending you.

12/15/2013 09:01:12 am

Its not just you..lol.. As if your race is spotless.. How about just trying to find out about real history witout adding your racist rhetoric to it.. You say im offended but yet that is all I see you talk about..racist bullshit.. I dont have to take the time to look at "your" study onanything..why would I? But its your site so I know you will have the last word..lol

Bill

12/15/2013 10:51:36 am

@white guy
Wow! I don't think I've ever seen anyone openly admit they were willing to criticize something and make assumptions about content without even bothering to look at the evidence. It's like wearing an "ignorant but proud" T-shirt. Your honesty is refreshing.

BTW - exactly what race do you think Jason is?

12/15/2013 11:20:25 am

Apparently there are people who differentiate between Italian-Americans and "white" people.

12/15/2013 12:38:21 pm

Joe Pesci played this scene to a T, just before he was whacked. I guess in depends where in Italy (Sicily?) one is from. (Just joking, like the movie.)

12/15/2013 01:30:16 pm

Lol.. If you must know.. My heritage is also Italian..Irish..English..German..Spanish..Cherokee....... Im a mut.. Just like most of us..but we still argue and fight about the stupidest shit.. Bill.. You have no idea what I have or havent studied.. 1, because I havent talked about it.. And 2, it wouldnt matter on this site anyway.. Not to a bunch of wanna be know it alls who obviously could care less about real history anyway.. Because it does not agree with you.. History is full of crap..but also many partial truths.. Our problem is we think our partial truth is absolute.. Here is some news for you buddy.. Its not.. I suppose you think science is the answer..lol.. Let me ask you.. What is the difference between faith and theory? And dont give me the bullshit that science is fact.. Facts change all the time.. You guys act soooo smart.. You are as human as the rest of us..

12/15/2013 02:02:39 pm

"History is full of crap" Examples, if you please.

"I suppose you think science is the answer" If you have something better, then do share.

"What is the difference between faith and theory?" Faith is believing without requiring proof. Theory is a representation of data that has been tested over and over, by different parties, and produced the same results each time. To further clarify, a hypothesis is speculation, a guess, that has yet to be tested.

If you have the means to determine "real history" without the use of science or specialized training, do share with the rest of the class. Consider it Show and Tell.

12/15/2013 02:11:35 pm

Only me... Im not trying to teach first of all.. But science..proof?!... Proof of what?! That everything about history is wrong? That we are at the peek of mankinds civilization?..lol.. How come science cannot "prove or have proof" about God and creationism? Yet we are suppose to believe the evolution theory.. What proof is there we evolved from mucus then monkeys..etc? What proof is there? Were you there? No..neither was I.. Science is great..but just as much full of shit as any religon..

12/15/2013 02:19:53 pm

Proof is a matter of opinion.. And persuasivness..that is all.. Some believe JFK was killed by a lone gunman..only because that is what they were taught.. Point being..we believe whatever we choose to believe.. Proof or not.. And in my opinion..proof is just another means to a form of slavery.. Like responsibility.. Money..etc..

12/15/2013 02:20:53 pm

I disagree. Science isn't perfect, but it is an honest attempt to explain the way things are without defaulting to "Because".

Science views God as unfalsifiable. That means there is no evidence for or against. Without evidence, there is nothing to test. Therefore, God is a matter of faith.

Even Darwin himself pointed out the problems inherent with his theory of evolution. I may have been there, but it doesn't explain why some days I feel older than dirt.

12/15/2013 02:22:50 pm

I meant to say "may not have been there".

12/15/2013 02:35:48 pm

Do not get me wrong only me.. Science has many benefits..but not all answers.. To say faith is wrong is unscientific.. And to say there is no proof of God is wrong.. It just depends on how one views evidence. I just think science is over rated..thats all.. You are still believing in someone elses theories and opinions..regaurdless of what "evidence" they claim to have.. I think faith is key...but we could debate this all night and never get anywhere..

12/15/2013 03:02:39 pm

I can agree with the gist of your comment. Is science over-rated? I'll submit that it's more likely the people who use it can be.

True, we're dealing with another's ideas, but you have to admit, how the evidence is presented is at least as important as how it may or may not support the idea.

My main problem with *some* of the "theories" presented by H2's programing, is how the "theories" were created to specifically serve a racial and/or political objective. Not understanding or acknowledging that origin makes it hard to separate something that may be of value from the pitfall that comes with saying, "People A couldn't have possibly accomplished _____; therefore, it must have been People B. We just haven't found the evidence...yet."

12/15/2013 03:21:30 pm

Only me.. You are right.. Unfortunately that is just about all forms of media though.. H2.. Discovery.. CNN.. etc..Almost all of them.. Also, what is taught in our churches and schools.. We as people say we think for ourselves..but I do not believe that to be entirely true.. We are taught what to believe through persuasiveness and influence.. Our teaching is goal based.. Like I said in an earlier reply.. Ive never seen this show..but I wouldnt expect it to be any different..

1/18/2014 03:59:15 pm

Apparently there are people who differentiate between Italian-Americans and "white" people..... white hispanic ?

walter krause

12/15/2013 09:00:53 am

America Unearthed
I agree that Scott Wolter has presented his own ideas that may be based on material that is objectionable to many people. In his defense I say his presentation is not meant as dogma or mind numbing facts. His presentation is aimed at awakening intelligent thought in people who up until now may be heavily influenced by traditional teachings in America. To recap the textbooks in America: Christopher Columbus discovered America, Leif Ericson may have been here earlier, the American Indians arrived during the last ice age across a land bridge to Asia, world travel has been limited in the past based on civilization being very recent in the time line of human existence, European and “Western Civilization is the most important source of philosophy and history … We have been exposed to these theories since we were very young. Is the Italian heritage of Christopher Columbus so important that facts must be twisted to support the common view? Is the teaching of the importance of Christopher Columbus racist? How about the Spanish and the Catholic Church? Their role in the discovery of America is huge. Is it the only approach worth looking at?
Dealing with racism in modern America ( modern racial integration, laws allowing participation of neglected groups, laws mandating the permission to neglected groups to be able to participate as fully fledged citizens in America and other educational and social precedents ) is a platform of thought which cries out for a clearer vision of history. To claim some people are descended from a “master race” is not a valid plank in our platform. To claim history is far more diverse than presented in elementary public education demands a wider study going much farther back. Theories which are supposed to stimulate thought such as the Atlantis theories, the alien theories, the time travel theories and other theories are being abused by some to further personal inspiration. Scott Wolter is guilty of this. But once again in his defense, entertainment television is not a reliable source of facts, nor was it intended to be so. When I take an anthropology course, an archeology course, a sociology course or other courses on investigative science, I allow for the fact that theories are presented. When I take a history class I allow for the natural errors made in recording, stockpiling and interpreting whatever is available and accepted to teach history. I do not approach anthropology as recorded history. I do not approach history as a series of theories waiting to be backed up by fact. All intellectual studies require the flexibility of the student and teacher to absorb material and individually and collectively organize theories, timetables, scenarios and outline questions and facts to be further researched. Our belief that one person could formulate a theory and make it fact without any support, further study or independent confirmation is endemic to human intelligence. Call it the “God Factor” or whatever the new age interpretation of faith is and you see mistakes are bound to be made on the side of guess (and faith) which are different from those who are dedicated to seeking out facts and presenting them as theories. Theories in themselves do not command faith or guess. Theories which are used to create propaganda, dogma, and group ethics are not necessarily in error. But how do you know? I personally choose to hold many beliefs and theories in my repertoire to create discussions of philosophy, science, religion and morality. In each discussion certain ground rules are laid down and adhered to during the discussion with the emphasis or emotional attachment I hold or present being germane to my beliefs and philosophy (including faith). My discussions of any subject are only meant to sway belief and faith if I choose to and state it as parameter of the discussion. Most people are uncomfortable separating what they consider facts from their personal beliefs. I consider Scott Wolton as using this construct to increase the watchability of his television show, not to promote racism. Having participated with and listened to the personal conversations of different types of people, I see many of them willing to stick to personal codes of conduct, philosophies and beliefs way beyond what acceptable facts are. In some cases these are hurtful, demeaning and arbitrary philosophies which don’t make sense. These people may or may not be swayed by new ideas, television or other inputs. In order to participate in intellectual conversation some of these people may be able to set aside their beliefs for the purpose of discussion and some may not. When I choose to believe or disbelieve any theory I take it under consideration that almost all rules which are set in stone eventually have to be changed anyway. This does not preclude me from faith (personal decision.)
I believe Scott Wolter is capable of considering info

12/15/2013 09:08:14 am

Scott Wolter isn't "promoting" racism; he's using ideas that were formulated in earlier eras, for racist, colonialist, imperialist and other reasons, and not taking the time to think about where the ideas came from. Part of evaluating if they are right is understanding why people thought they were true. The rock wall of Rockwall conveniently helped Anglo-Texans deprive Native Americans of their lands by creating an imaginary earlier occupation. It's an important part of the story and one that America Unearthed ignores wherever it goes, thereby perpetuating wrong ideas that had very serious consequences in the past.

I know this is a subtle point, but it's an important one: Scott Wolter is not a racist, but he uses old racist ideas, including those of white supremacists and Nazi sympathizers, without adequately considering the motives and manipulations of those people who first proposed the claims he "investigates."

steve

12/15/2013 10:51:54 am

And you wear blue jeans made of cotton. As you wear those you, OF COURSE, are highly mindful that the popularity of cotton products in this country rested on the backs of Africans enslaved and brought to this country against their will, aren't you Jason?

That sweet dessert you enjoy after dinner. What's it sweetened with? Sugar. These days, most sugar comes from beets. But our craving for it began on the backs of enslaved Africans who were part of the pan Atlantic slave route which brought goods from Britain, down to the West African coast to trade for slaves; then on to sell slaves to the West Indies islands' sugar plantations; then on to the Carolinas and Virginia tobacco planters; then they picked up tobacco and brought it back to Britain. OF COURSE, you look down at that delicious dessert and quietly say a prayer for those poor enslaved Africans who developed your ancestors' - and, thus, your - sweet tooth DON'T YOU, Jason?

Have you adequately considered 'the motives and manipulations of those people who first' brought these goods to you? No, I highly doubt that you have, you blue-jean-wearing, sweet-eating thoughtless blog writer you.

12/15/2013 11:18:52 am

Since I know history, yes, of course, I know that history. But you are comparing different things entirely. America Unearthed is investigating specific claims about history but reporting only a part of the story. It would be like trying to explain the *history* of cotton-growing without mentioning slavery but instead asking whether a lost race of robot harvesters once picked the cotton that fueled the Southern economy.

Why do people want to believe against 140 years of scientific proof that the rock wall is not a natural formation? What needs does belief fill? In the 1800s, that need was tied to asserting Anglo-Texan control over formerly Native land. In the modern era, it's increasingly tied to New Age beliefs and religious fundamentalism.

You might note that I separated the discussion of the deep background from the critique of the episode. I did that on purpose to show just how much of the story the show left out.

12/15/2013 12:50:01 pm

Well said, Walter Krause.

I think it's important to understand that Jason's core belief is that viewers of American Unearthed (as well as most humans he ever encounters) are not as smart as he.

The reason Jason blogs is that he's here to protect the stupid mass, the great unwashed from themselves. He's just so much smarter than they are.

In fact, as other comments above have pointed out - Jason should be doubted. The accepted history books should be doubted. The dogma of the academic elite should be doubted. Ideas of religion should be doubted.

In my daily encounters with Americans, I've found them to have a healthy skepticism of shows like this, of religions, of arrogant elitist academics, and of pundits like Jason.

I often hear how racist Americans are. Yet we've twice elected an African American to the highest office in the land. People like Jason will tell you that's not good enough. They NEED us to be racist, so their religion can continue. Thus, the race baiting continues. They see racists behind every tree.

12/15/2013 01:06:58 pm

You might notice that the difference is that I never ask anyone to take my word for anything. I always provide evidence and citations to relevant sources. You don't have to believe me because you can check my facts for yourself.

It's interesting, though, that you assume that I am a political liberal with particular racial policy positions. You are projecting your own fantasy onto what you can't and don't know.

12/15/2013 01:13:26 pm

Jason, are you a political Liberal?

12/15/2013 01:20:00 pm

I am, as I have always been, somewhere in the middle, with positions on various issues that range from left of center to right of center depending on the issue. I used to be what was called center-right, but over the last fifteen years, the center caught up with me and passed on by to the right.

Steve

12/15/2013 02:28:44 pm

Jason wrote, '...the center caught up with me and passed on by to the right."

That would make you left-leaning, Jason. And your blog themes show it.

12/19/2013 11:25:26 am

Jason wrote, "...the center caught up with me and passed on by to the right."

steve wrote, "That would make you left-leaning, Jason. And your blog themes show it."

The Other J. wrote, "Don't be daft. If the right passed him by, the political spectrum shifted while Jason stayed consistent. Are you going to argue the political right hasn't moved further right in the last 15 years? Because there are a number of primaried conservative politicians who would beg to differ ("I'm not a witch"). If you, steve, are standing at a crossroads, and a car comes from the left and passes by proceeding to the right, but you remain in place, you didn't move to the car's left, the car moved to your right."

Brent

12/20/2013 04:53:01 am

Steve: "That would make you left-leaning, Jason. And your blog themes show it."

My question: So?
I can detect a little left lean, sure. Just like you can detect SOME lean in LITERALLY ANYTHING WRITTEN. And the amount of lean here is MINIMAL.

You see, blogs- along with books and movies- are made by people, and people have biases. Peoples' biases has been something touched on many times by Jason, and usually the gist is that everyone has them, to some degree.

Everything has some lean, left or right, but (and this is speaking as a gun-toting, Bible-thumping conservative) the question is whether the author tries to mitigate said bias (which Jason seems to go to great lenghts to do, even when it seems unnecessary...a positive product of training in journalism as I recall), and whether it is strong enough to twist the process/conclusions.

With some of the works Wolter uses to substantiate his claims, the bias of the writer was enough to call the entire work into question. When you're on a loose quest to find evidence of a civilization specifically to support/legitimize your own deeply held political beliefs, then the product may be called into question.

But when the objective is to disprove obvious untruths (very specific claims made by an individual), and the method is to use facts, often citing many verifiable sources (many of which are either original or contemporary, instead of second-hand repeats of repeats from a book made 300 years later), then the product is far less questionable.

So what I'm saying is, grow up. EVERYTHING created by people leans either way a little. Sometimes it's problematic. Sometimes its not. In this case, it's not.

Not to mention that, if everyone projected onto Wolter to the degree you're projecting onto Jason, Wolter would seem like some sort of babbling, insane, tinfoil-hat-wearing crazy-pants-psycho, instead of just being misguided and intellectually dishonest.

12/15/2013 12:32:53 pm

Let me give you a better example. The movie Apollo 13 with Tom Hanks showed 3 WHITE men on their way to the moon. How many African Americans or Native Americans were in the capsule? How many were in Space Center Houston? In telling of white America's land grab of the moon, why didn't the move producers, writers, etc. spend half the movie talking about NASA's (and the engineering profession's) bias against African American and Native American engineers? Wouldn't that have made a much more compelling movie? Spending half an hour as a talking head apologized for NASA's bias? That would have been a riveting movie, Jason.

After all, Native Americans deified the moon, didn't they? It was their moon, too. Maybe more theirs than the European-centric Americans !!

Why didn't NASA build a much bigger lunar lander and land one person of each race on the moon, Jason?

12/15/2013 01:04:46 pm

How on earth (or the moon) is showing the actual events that occurred the same as making up material that never happened?

Oh, and the moon belongs to all humanity under international law and can't be claimed by America or any other country.

12/15/2013 01:06:37 pm

(Raise hand.) Prejudice?

I haven't seen any racist stuff coming from Wolter, only from Jason. He sees a white racist behind every tree. Is Wolter purposely dragging up race-baiting issues? I don't think so. Is Jason purposely dragging up race-baiting issues? Yes, I think so.

Very early in this blog, last spring, I immediately noticed the attacks conjured up against anyone even mentioning anything noteworthy about the white race, as though we should all be vilified into eternity for past misdeeds. All colors have committed past misdeeds involving slavery, which was periodically commonplace.

I carry no personal guilt, and it is a shame when anyone comes here and is assailed simply for being white, or talking about what white people did within the puzzle called history.

12/15/2013 01:11:40 pm

Clearly you don't follow the difference between someone being racist and someone promoting ideas that have historically been associated with racist policies and ideologies. Are you unable to discern the difference? Or are you purposely obtuse?

Who is "conjuring" attacks against white people? If you're asking if I believe Western civilization produced the most advanced and prosperous civilization in history because of skin color, I would say no. It is the product of a culture, not of paleness of skin. There are "white" people who did not share in the West's historical greatness and many who were viewed in their time as non-white who did contribute greatly, then as now. Culture and race are not synonymous.

Are you saying that Western Civilization is great, or the white race?

12/15/2013 01:25:34 pm

Well, I am only a bit purposely obtuse, at times. I don't think Wolter has much awareness of promoting ideas that have been historically associated with racist policies and ideologies. I don't think he would purposely do that, and I'm wondering if you may not be imagining things about a hidden agenda.

I'm not saying anything about the white race at all. I talked about white people when discussing history, but I don't understand why all the "whitey" attacks. Anything good added into civilization by any race is wonderful. You keep trying to race-bait, even now. Without question, every race has contributed to the good things of this world. Nevertheless, I was born white and am neither proud nor ashamed of the fact.

12/15/2013 01:32:00 pm

How many times can I say that there is no racist master plan? Wolter isn't purposely being racist. He is repeating old ideas and doesn't know or care where they came from, and he is advocating a fantasy that has the effect of devaluing Native American cultures and their accomplishments. Because his ideas are so demonstrably untrue, these effects are all the more problematic.

12/15/2013 02:04:03 pm

Not to belabor the point, as I'm getting old and need a lot of sleep, but I don't see Wolter as advocating a fantasy that has the effect of devaluing Native American cultures. Are you sure you're not the one advocating a fantasy...that has the effect of tarnishing Wolter unmercifully, unnecessarily?

12/15/2013 04:35:16 pm

Indeed …

I have known Scott Wolter as both a personal friend and as a professional colleague for 25+ years … He is NOT a "racist" ...

Clint Knapp

12/15/2013 05:26:57 pm

Once again, Gunn crawls out of his hole to spout some nonsense about that which he can't even seem to comprehend. No idea who this Reverend fellow is- don't really care either.

At this point, it's not even a matter of their inability to understand, it's just a point of launching some more attacks for no real reason other than being sad little people with nothing better to do.

If you fail to see Wolter as using ideas that had racially motivated origins, but you see Jason describing those origins as launching attacks on "whitey" and "race baiting" then there's really nothing anyone can do for you. I might suggest some college-level English classes and maybe a course in critical reading, but what's the point? You're not here to contribute anything but attacks and occasionally hijack a comment thread. If you dislike it here so much and disagree with so much, then why on Earth do you keep trolling around? Go find something better to do, please. You're only making yourselves look more foolish.

12/16/2013 04:35:24 am

Clint, why don't you, yourself, go find something better to do? I usually don't bother to respond to you, because you're such an evil pain in the butt here, but the truth of the matter is that you rarely contribute. Anyone looking back at your rude comment can see that it offers nothing of substance, and that it's only a stupid attack. You try to sound smart, but you come across as being a social jackass. Hee-haw!

What did you say, Clint?

"I said, 'hee-haw!'"

This is my last return comment to you, jackass.

12/17/2013 08:21:41 am

Wow ,Jason. No matter how many times you say it, they still think you're calling SW a racist (which you obviously are not). And, by pointing out that many of the theories presenting in the series were originated by racists - somehow makes you a racist (or a race baiter, I'm not sure I can follow the logic)?
Oh, and BTW - the wall is not man-made.

12/17/2013 12:39:46 pm

We get the point, RLewis. It's the implication. We say "race-baiter" because that's what it comes across as...race-baiting: everything seeming to relate to race, for some odd reason. Jason has tried to say that he's not that interested in things racial, yet many topics seem to carry a heavy weight of self-condemnation because he, himself, is white and guilty of historical crimes, still. He's guilty because he's white, and this must be a mill-stone around his neck.

(Yes, Italians are considered white, in spite of what Joe Pesci's character had to say about ship-wreaked blacks mingling with Sicilians. We need original source material.)

And if Jews are considered "white," then Jesus was/is white. We all know that white really isn't white, except for those with extremely pale skin, like that of some Scandinavians, for instance. (Don't imagine anything implied.)

Santa has become a target of unnecessary political correctness and race-baiting. Leave Santa alone.

Black Jesus's and black Santa's serve to confuse history and fantasy alike, but I see no real harm if someone wants to imagine these things for good reasons, such as to help their children to identify with the C/characters. People need to lighten up. Oftentimes, political correctness goes too far.

And then again, some people purposely create racial tensions, perhaps for latent "guilt" reasons, to possibly absolve themselves of their ancestors' past evildoing. To them, I say: "Speak for yourself, Paleface."

12/17/2013 12:50:23 pm

How do you perceive me as feeling "guilty"? My ancestors came to America long after Indian Removal had occurred and slavery was abolished. Here in America they were subject to discrimination and prejudice, and my ancestors had been, in Europe, subject to various forms of oppression and tyranny by various elites. For example, my Polish ancestors saw their land colonized and controlled by the Austrian Germans, who treated them as sub-humans in their own homeland. I still have the Austro-Hungarian documents they brought with them in leaving for America.

There is no simple hierarchy of "good" and "bad" people; history is a complex web, and to pretend otherwise is to project modern dichotomies into the past.

12/17/2013 01:10:39 pm

"There is no simple hierarchy of "good" and "bad" people; history is a complex web, and to pretend otherwise is to project modern dichotomies into the past."

So then, there is no shared guilt by all white people of all white misdeeds done in the past...agreed. So then, the problem must be when you look in the mirror? No? Well then, it must be we other white people who are to blame, still...people like Wolter?

(Joking a bit, playing a bit with you.)

12/15/2013 12:48:47 pm

Well said, Walter Krause.

I think it's important to understand that Jason's core belief is that viewers of American Unearthed (as well as most humans he ever encounters) are not as smart as he.

The reason Jason blogs is that he's here to protect the stupid mass, the great unwashed from themselves. He's just so much smarter than they are.

In fact, as other comments above have pointed out - Jason should be doubted. The accepted history books should be doubted. The dogma of the academic elite should be doubted. Ideas of religion should be doubted.

In my daily encounters with Americans, I've found them to have a healthy skepticism of shows like this, of religions, of arrogant elitist academics, and of pundits like Jason.

I often hear how racist Americans are. Yet we've twice elected an African American to the highest office in the land. People like Jason will tell you that's not good enough. They NEED us to be racist, so their religion can continue. Thus, race baiting continues. They see racists behind every tree.

12/15/2013 01:13:53 pm

Hey, Steve, we both see race-baiters watching for racists behind every tree!

Ryan

12/15/2013 01:20:11 pm

I just watched this episode (tuned in late, catching where he scrapes the rock and then uses acid on it, declaring it is limestone.) I am from Texas and listening to him talk like limestone was not common in Texas blew my mind. Limestone is all over the state, that is why we have numerous cave systems. This guy has claimed that he is a "forensic geologist." What is that you ask? Someone who works with police investigating and sampling soil samples from crime scenes. So, the question is why is a "forensic geologist" doing a show that has nothing to do with his profession? If he knew geology, wouldn't he know that it was limestone pretty much? And if the wall was 7 stories, why would he be surprised that it was built by someone millinia ago? We don't know how the pyramids were built so why coulnd't Native Americans build a 7 story wall?
And when they showed the wall, I could even tell it wasn't man-made. It doesn't take a scientist to see that it was natural. But I guess it goes back to nature is not capable of creating anything that looks man-made. This show is a crock but a lot of what is on the History channel is nowadays. I am working on my master's in history and this channel blows my mind sometimes.

12/15/2013 01:28:28 pm

Welcome to the wonderful world of America Unearthed, where Scott Wolter pretends not to know the obvious until the end of the hour so they can stretch a 2-minute story into an hour-long "event."

Wolter does the show because he has spent the last 12 years on a quest to prove that the Knights Templar brought the lost descendants of Jesus to America to rule as Holy Grail Kings.

Andy

12/15/2013 01:39:11 pm

I actually thought this was one of the better episodes of this show. Yes, it was padded and sensationalistic, but it clearly identified a question (natural or human-made?) and used an appropriate, sound method (with a professional driving the bus) to address that question. Apparently the program did tell us something we already knew about the "rock wall" (I had never heard of the rock wall before), but actually addressing a "mystery" in an appropriate way is a step forward. For me, this moves the credibility of the program from a 0 to 1 (on a scale of 100).

Traileroffer

12/15/2013 01:56:27 pm

Sure is...a...lot...of...ellipsis...abuse...going...on...here...
When did this wide-spread phobia of ordinary sentences develop?

12/15/2013 05:33:42 pm

Proper sentence structure and punctuation are the tools of the "academic elitists". Therefore such conventions are to be discarded by those who would have you believe academics are all big meanie-head liars out to control your mind and hide the truth of your [insert favorite conspiracy here] heritage.

Im so smart :-)

12/15/2013 05:35:07 pm

Who....cares....

12/15/2013 04:40:24 pm

Read that blog about Scott Wolter conspiring to hide the truth about the wall in Rockwall you linked to, Jason. I feel like I underwent a partial frontal lobotomy.

Those folks STILL refuse to believe that it's a natural formation and are talking about giants or it being a "pre-Flood" site...because it LOOKS man-made. One even compared it to the Yonaguni debate!

I guess Giant's Causeway would make their heads explode.

An Over-Educated Grunt

12/16/2013 01:25:33 am

I suppose it's because it was in an area I do feel qualified to yell at the TV about, but this episode rubbed me wrong in all sorts of ways. It wasn't just the failure to address "why" and "wherefore," as Jason mentions in the follow-on blog post, but the "how" was incredibly slipshod as well.

One of the things I had hoped for in "America Unearthed" was a discussion of how geosciences shaped the modern United States, like a discussion of New Madrid, or the shaping of the Mississippi watershed to fit human needs rather than its natural course, or the problems of constructing a city like DC on swampland, or... you get the idea. Instead, we get one more "woo" show on a network that's already got too many of them. This episode, where the eventual outcome was that science trumped woo, was especially frustrating to me because it represented lost opportunity upon lost opportunity. Most of the recent episodes have fallen into this class, actually (see Colorado; how do you discuss whether central Colorado is suitable for tunneling without ever mentioning Cheyenne Mountain?).

The episode felt professionally dishonest to me. I had a professor once upon a time (already labeling myself as an academic elite, I know), who told a joke about the principal at an engineering firm who finally had the money to hire a staff geologist. He told his HR director that he wanted one with just one hand, though. When the HR guy asked why, the engineer said, "Every time I get an opinion from one of those bastards, it's always 'but on the other hand...'" This episode, while we eventually got "on the other hand," and while there were plenty of hints that even Wolter didn't buy into the giant wall story, felt like the entire time, he was withholding evidence for theater's sake. It might be fine entertainment, but it's bad geology, and as I said, it felt professionally dishonest no matter what the end state was.

Then there's the missed opportunity to educate on geoscience in general. Wolter has never once pulled up a geological survey map, explained about rock units, faulting, or stratigraphy, all of which would have made the eventual reveal much more obvious. I suppose it might also make him look like a know-it-all elite, but the fact is, when you call in a geologist to look at a geologic formation, no matter what, you're making an appeal to authority. He was going to come out looking like a know-it-all elite no matter what. After a year of convincing people who don't know him from Adam that he was a fringe nutcase, he had several opportunities to show us what he really knows, and he's a professional geologist, so someone somewhere thinks he's at least got a four-year degree, four years' practice, and the chops to pass the licensing exam, so on geology specifically, I would have been happy to give him a chance to shine. He didn't, and that is intensely frustrating to me.

Had he done that, though, he would have shown that, specifically in Texas, there is a very thick sediment bed near the surface, extending at the coastline so far down that you may as well forget about bedrock, and even in Dallas, where he was, it's a pretty substantial deposit, near-homogeneous, with such a high clay content as to overwhelm anything else. The clay in question is highly expansive (or if you prefer, has high shrink-swell potential); it can hold water like nobody's business, and will go through severe volume changes with changes in water content. When it dries, either through evaporation or compression, the result is "rocking," where you can have cracks develop that can, in very extreme cases, be mistaken for drainage ditches. The rocks formed thereby are damn near indestructible, with compressive strengths similar to batch-plant portland concrete, but the cracks have all the performance you'd expect from air. Now, the nature of cracks is that they fill. They never fill with anything useful, but they fill. In this case, it looks like the cracks in the surface layer filled with what was beneath them. What was beneath?

Back to that geologic map. Texas has a band of limestone, the Edwards limestone, running from the Red to the Rio Grande, right along the Balcones Fault, which follows modern I-35, though realistically 35 follows the fault. What sort of stone was thrust up through those cracks? Limestone. Why did the limestone fracture cleanly into "man-made" blocks? Because that's what limestone does. It's got bedding plains running parallel to the depositional surface, and then it's got (relatively) terrible unconfined shear strength, so when you have a cantilevered limestone block, it cracks cleanly, creating what look like clean vertical breaks. Thus, it creates what look like quarried blocks all on its lonesome. Why are there bugholes and drains in the limestone? Because it's water-soluble, and will naturally form pipes. Taken to an extreme that's, as was mentioned, why Texas has extensive cave systems. Why does it look like i

12/16/2013 01:27:45 am

*Chuckles* Even the comment system thinks I'm long-winded.

To get to my point that much faster, the show came across as bad geology, professionally dishonest, ignoring an opportunity in favor of a quick buck, and don't even get me started on the guy who owns an excavation firm.

12/16/2013 01:41:18 am

It's a TV show … For some reason some folks feel the need to agonize over it, analyze it, and denounce it …

I dunno ...

12/16/2013 01:52:01 am

Because I can see how it could have been done better. Without going into any sort of doctrinal conflict, it's bad geology, bad engineering, and bad entertainment all rolled into one. I'm a geotechnical engineer who grew up surrounded by geologists. I'm probably the only geotech you'll ever find who's got a third of his coursework in historical preservation and geoarchaeology. In short, it offends me because I look at it and see my profession being treated casually. I'm sure you feel the same way about any piece of biblical-history TV that plays fast and loose with the Gospels.

12/16/2013 01:53:13 am

Have you ever visited the Onion's A.V. Club, Phil? Or Television Without Pity? Analyzing TV shows is pretty much what the internet was made for. And the TV shows they analyze aren't even the ones that pretend to be true.

12/16/2013 02:00:05 am

There are (some) good TV shows, many that are mediocre, and not a few that are simply awful …

I take them ALL as what they are -- TV shows ...

12/16/2013 02:03:24 am

Your refusal to differentiate between shows that pretend to be true and those that don't suggests you'd be OK with labeling the Bible "just a book," or treating "Twilight" and "The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" as equivalents.

12/16/2013 02:12:42 am

Thanks so much for your perspective. Greatly appreciated.

12/16/2013 02:41:12 am

As I already posted in another J.C. blog spot … IMHO, the "America Unearthed" H2 TV shows have a positive value in stimulating and encouraging active interest in and discussion of North American history and pre-history … I think that is a GOOD thing …

The claims and/or findings of any of the shows are of course open to debate and further investigation -- or not …

But let me add that in any given particular episode, there ARE generally provided some very solid science education moments … E.g., the Texas Rock Wall show gave a brief and non-technical introduction to study of the changes in Earth's magnetic field as ONE way of dating a particular deposit … Almost certainly many viewers would not have been previously aware of that very useful method …

Lighten up ...

12/16/2013 03:55:58 am

Rev. Phil, you stated previously in this section "any of the findings and conclusions, methods and suppositions, of the H2 "America Unearthed" TV shows certainly can and should be discussed, hashed over, critiqued, etc.,", but when Grunt does just that, you dismiss him out of hand by saying "It's a TV show".

All Grunt said was that Scott, a trained geologist, missed several opportunities to showcase his knowledge base, given that his investigation of Rockwall proved, once again, that the rock wall was a natural formation.

If you're going to say that the findings, conclusions, methods and suppositions *can* and *should* be discussed and critiqued, then backhand someone for doing so, why open the door? What was it Grunt said that you have issue with?

12/16/2013 05:38:29 am

As I have already agreed NUMEROUS times -- OF COURSE any and all of the claims and findings of the "America Unearthed" TV show can and should be hashed over, critiqued and discussed …

But it IS … a TV SHOW … It isn't purported to be and shouldn't be weighed as if it IS the video equivalent of The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences … Hence my advice to: lighten up ...

12/16/2013 06:18:58 am

The problem is that while it's interesting, paleomagnetism isn't terribly accessible to the average person. It's like the discovery of the Higgs boson. It might be (READ: is) fascinating, but to the average person, it might as well not have happened, because it happens at the cutting edge of the field, not in the "practical" realm. Those resources are for people who are specialized in their fields, and already know the groundwork. I understand it, and I thought that reaching out to an actual local geophysicist was a great move for a variety of reasons. That part of the show is fine, and provided the only five minutes worth watching... for someone with six years of technical education in the field.

What Wolter fails to deliver on is the groundwork. You've said that there are some very solid science education moments. How is it better that those moments be spent talking about paleomagnetism, which is of real, vital interest to three people in labs, rather than something that the average person? How is it better that, in the Colorado episode, he spend ten minutes wasting time turning over shovels of sand, rather than talking about similar huge tunneling projects that took place right next door? How, in either case, is it better that he fill time with local color, rather than explain the actual geology behind it? I'm even fine with his description of how to test to see if it's limestone, that's legitimate science that you can tell your kids to do in the backyard.

This episode was frustrating precisely because of that. There were these brief flashes of what could have been, on a better America Unearthed, where the geologist shows how geology affects lives. Then we went back to business as usual.

12/16/2013 06:53:29 am

It's a TV show. We know, we got it.

No one is saying it should be the same as the proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Grunt merely gave an honest critique, an action you support. His point was that Scott missed several chances to strut his stuff and spotlight his experience as a trained geologist. The show has missed several chances to enlighten the viewer about geoscience, and how Scott could have used that to enrich his investigations.

His investigation at Rockwall was tailor-made for him. He finally used a branch of geology, paleomagnetism, to aid in his final conclusion. This was something he could have been doing in the first season. In other words, if you have the tools, use them.

There's no reason to tell people to "lighten up", just because they want to see Scott use the training he offers as his basis of expertise while doing his investigations.

12/16/2013 02:19:00 am

My comment "thanks for your perspective" was intended for the Over- Educated Grunt! I know and interact with a number of highly skilled and well educated geologists and archaeologists and they are ALL disgusted with Scott Wolter and this program.

B L

12/16/2013 02:57:20 am

Jason:

Your Jackson example from his annual Message to Congress on December 7, 1830...

"In the monuments and fortresses of an unknown people, spread over the extensive regions of the west, we behold the memorials of a once powerful race, which was exterminated, or has disappeared, to make room for the existing savage tribes."

I don't see any racism here. Instead, my interpretation is as follows....Most of the Native Americans of Jackson's time would have been nomadic, or would have resided in small villages made of fairly primative materials and construction (by European standards). I think it would have been reasonable at the time for someone outside the field to assume that huge mounds, stone construction, and the like would require skills that the current native peoples had never possessed. It also would have been reasonable to assume that since these technologically advanced peoples were no longer around that they would have been wiped out by some outside force.

It would seem to be a logical progression of ideas based on the archeological knowledge at the time.

Am I missing something?

12/16/2013 03:08:17 am

Jackson didn't have to articulate the rest of the thought because it was simply assumed in his day: The lost race were white people killed off by the savages. If you review the Congressional debates about the Indian Removal Act, carried out in the months surrounding this address, you can see references to the lost race of the Mound Builders, and the popular literature of the day identified those Mound Builders as white people, often Lost Tribes of Israel. In referencing the lost race, Jackson was calling up the widespread assumption about who the lost race was, a belief that continues down to the present in some quarters.

Jackson, incidentally, often privately called the Native Americans "heathens" and "savages" and for many years prior he maintained at his home a collection of Mississippian artifacts that he attributed to a lost white race, under the influence of his father-in-law, a lost race theorizer with a longstanding interest in the issue. (His father-in-law excavated mounds in search of remnants of the lost race.)

12/16/2013 03:49:30 am

Thanks for the clarification. That certainly adds another connotation to his comments.

Karla Akins link

12/16/2013 05:48:02 am

As a white woman, I've never believed in a "white Jesus." Just so you know there are white folks out here with a lick of sense.

As for Santa, uh, isn't he fictional?

And regarding Scott Wolter, I agree with your assessment of this latest episode. I was disappointed it was a natural formation, though. I may not be an ignorant white girl, but I don't know everything. No one can know everything.

Darren Sapp

12/16/2013 06:09:18 am

I thought I might offer a perspective as someone who has lived in Rockwall for the last twenty years. I'd guess that half of Rockwall residents don't know why the city is named Rockwall. Very few know of a locations where one can dig. I know I could find out if I asked around but all known sites are on private property and people don't want sightseers. The dig site on the show is about few miles from my house. Of those in Rockwall that know about the wall, I've never met anyone that cared that much. Most believe the wall is natural, as has been stated by experts in the past. In other words, it's a non-issue, but fun for my kids to see their hometown on TV. That's about it. Of much greater interest, is the recent revelation that Lee Harvey Oswald's widow has lived in Rockwall for the last 45 years as reported by the tabloid Daily Mail. Only a few in Rockwall have known, and we protect her privacy.

Garrett

12/16/2013 06:26:16 am

Jason,
I can agree with your critique of the episode and its theatrics, pacing and actual content. However, your over-generalization of the people of Rockwall based on what I am sure are hand selected people who are willing to support the shows agenda, is what I have a problem with. I live in the Rockwall area and while I have heard of the "wall" in passing before, the speculations of origin, particularly, construction by giants has never reached my ears. While the fringe thinkers, very few around the Rockwall area IMO, may believe in crackpot theories such as those presented by the show, they remain on the fringe. I doubt you have spoken to a majority of people around Rockwall or even had personal interaction with more than a handful, I could be wrong. Comments like the following seem to create the ethnocentric agenda you espouse against.
“Oddly enough, today the people of Rockwall have forgotten all this and speak darkly of a U.S. government cover-up of the monument and fortress of an unknown people they believe lies beneath their feet”
“Can this be more obvious than in the assumption by the people of Rockwall, Texas, that the clastic sandstone dykes running beneath their town are the work of Biblical giants, travelers from the Old World, or some other group symbolizing the power of traditionally dominant social groups such as the church, white Europeans, etc.?”
Further, you constantly bemoan about people unwilling to research and fact check themselves. However, a less than 5 minute google search would have shown you that Sheri Fowler, the “historian”, works for the local school district and her degree is in film and journalism.
While I agree that the topic of the formation of the wall is closed for debate in the academic realm, you must remember that this show is not for academics, but rather for people looking for entertainment. I enjoy watching the show for what I call its “silliness” and reading your review and critique afterwards. Your lumping of all Rockwall’s people into the fringe thinkers bin irked me and I felt I needed to comment, something I rarely do.

Pardon any grammar mistakes, I wrote this at work and therefore had to do it quickly.

12/16/2013 08:19:20 am

You're right that I should have clarified that the people of Rockwall I was referring to were the advocates of the non-natural origin, who are obviously a minority of townsfolk. In any place, most people don't have deeply held views about wacky theories. I regret the error, and I will correct it in the text above.

12/17/2013 12:22:19 am

Jason should also clarify that Rock Wall is south of the Mason Dixon Line and, like many of his political bent living in the north, he thinks anyone living there is lesser than he is.

12/17/2013 01:29:44 am

Gee, I guess that's why my cousin is professor at Old Dominion and a whole branch of my family are lifelong residents of the great state of Georgia.

12/16/2013 09:16:04 am

A couple of things I liked about the show...

1. The magnetism study. This should put the "man-made" theories to rest for good. Previous studies might have seemed inconclusive to lay-people who just can't get past how unnatural the wall looks.

2. It was encouraging to see Scott place this site on his lucite map of America at the end of the show. He came to the conclusion that the wall was natural and he placed it on his map anyway. This may mean the map is being used more as a "diary" for faithful viewers than an over-all inventory of pre-Columbian European American exploration attempting to lend further credence to Wolter's Jesus bloodline ideas.

12/16/2013 08:28:34 pm

Obviously Scott knew the truth about the wall before he decided to pretend to listen to the kooks who think it was manmade.

The entire show was a fraud for that reason.

12/17/2013 01:21:19 am

It's a TV show, and it follows the formula of most such TV shows …

There's a fairly good series (I don't recall off hand which channel offers it), "How the Earth Was Made" … It features geologists out in the field looking at formations and whacking off specimens which are hauled back to the lab for study …

THEN … !!! The breathless announcement is made about ancient volcanic episodes around what are now The Great Lakes, with glaciers later having scoured out the deep basins that are now full of water … !!! A naive viewer MIGHT conclude that these amazing unexpected discoveries were made only last year, and were documented on film as the researches were made … !!!

That's how such TV shows attract and hold an audience -- DRAMA … !!! SUSPENSE … !!! NOVELTY … !!! It's like that … It's a TV show ...

Matt Mc

12/17/2013 02:28:05 am

You over simplify.

America Unearthed also does something that How the Earth was Made does not do. It makes claims that main stream science is wrong and is hiding or ignoring facts. This claim changes the dynamic. Sure it is just a TV show but it makes claims does not back up. The show while being ultimately made for entertainment presents itself as informative and educational (this is a fault of History channel and the production company) so it is reasonable for one to expect that the science involved is sound. I would have less of a problem if a disclaimer preceded the program stating that the program was based in speculation and opinions that are not based in science fact (some shows do do this) and the show is for entertainment only and not for educational use. However if that did happen the premise of the show would change, it would be a given that the theories and methods presented in the show were not based in science fact.

Also I have worked in TV production for over 20 years, mostly in news and documentaries for clients like CNN, FOX News, Bloomberg, Discovery, ESPN, PBS (WETA in particular) Nation Geographic, Smithsonian, Comcast and our own State Department. It is very common that a third party is brought in to investigate the claims for the history and cultural shows to make sure that the science is correct. This practice is very common in historical and science based show (How the Earth was Made is one I know is vetted by a third party).

The problem I have is the presentation. Wolter and his producers (I place blame only on Wolter because he is the face of the show regardless if he has nothing to do with scripting since it is ultimately his reputation on the line) have chosen to mix pseudo science and speculation and present it as a possible fact. They use age old and time tested propaganda techniques in presenting their ideas (repeating and restating a theory, the what ifs, the potential cover up) to forward their own agenda. They use editing techniques to re-arrange people statements. This is all deceptive and while not illegal is highly unethical and sadly the average viewer still takes it as face value. So while you say it is just entertainment it is deceptive and manipulative entertainment based in dishonestly.

I feel Jason does a service by addressing the show. The more people like Jason and others, try to expose the undercurrents of dishonestly in this show and others like it (including the dumb survival shows where the host struggles to survive while a crew of 10 stands off camera) the more we can help change the inherent dishonesty of these shows. These techniques will be continued to be used until people are sick of them or made aware of how the producers are trying to manipulate them (I include the news organizations in this). We need to continue to expose and call out those responsible for shows like this, questioning their techniques and methods with a hope for more honesty and correct information in the future.

So it is not just entertainment it is part of a larger trend of media manipulation that is sold to the general public that goes unchecked for the most part. Criticism should be made, more people should be made aware that this show is just entertainment and not historical or factual at all. The producers and Wolter have chosen to present it otherwise and until they do I hope Jason and others will continue their questioning.

12/17/2013 03:29:49 am

It would be different if the opening of each episode said something like "We feel these sights deserve a second look" or "we would like to challenge some of the mainstream scientific views". But instead they infer we are being purposely lied to through some sort of mass conspiracy. If you're going to take such broad shots at academia and the scientific community then you should expect extensive critical review of your information.

12/17/2013 04:18:56 am

Again … The positive value of the "America Unearthed" TV shows (IMHO) is indeed that they encourage interest in and discussion of North American history … AS happens in these blogs graciously provided by Jason Colavito …

I think that such discussions are BEST done without resorting to insults or character assassination … Just discuss the ideas and claims …

It IS unfortunate that obviously SOME viewers of SOME TV shows may well be exceedingly naive and are not well equipped to evaluate or "get" just what is being presented … That is not the fault of the TV show producers ...

12/17/2013 04:19:04 am

12/17/2013 04:56:21 am

I respectfully disagree.

Shows that deliberately mislead are a real problem. Whether it is America Unearthed, Ancient Aliens, Fox News, or CNN.

It is totally the producers and given hosts fault. They are responsible for bad information and are not held accountable. Like I said it is a matter of personal ethics. I have walked away from jobs because I felt they were asking me to deliberately mislead the public. It is common knowledge in the industry that you have to make ever show or program to be understood by a 10 year old (That is what the industry think the average viewers mentality is). America Unearthed does this by its use of propaganda. Shows like this are bottom feeders that are not made to encourage any free thought but rather sell advertising using the simplest propaganda techniques out there.

12/17/2013 08:49:55 am

To be fair and realistic …

The "America Unearthed" TV shows do NOT rise to the stature and quality of, say, "NOVA," or "Frontline" …

But NEITHER do they partake of "Ancient Aliens" or "Nostradamus" …
Get real … Lighten up ...

12/17/2013 10:54:02 am

Rev. Gotsch,

Great point about being 'fair and realistic.'

Let's talk more about 'shows that deliberately mislead' as "Matt Mc" says.

I like to use references Jason can identify with. Here's an example - Rachel Maddow and that pentacle of news organizations, MSNBC. That's a particularly good, one. Right, Jason?

Here we have a supposed "news organization." Fascinating choice of words. I'll quote Wikipedia, a favorite source of unimpeachable (a 5-sylable word for our academic readers) research: MSNBC features 'news-gathering, information, and' (as an afterthought) 'political opinion programming.' Don't take my word for it. I pulled it off of their Wiki. Here's the link - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MSNBC
Recent headline: "MSNBC's Ed Schultz paid $252,000 by unions in last two years"

Are they a "news-gathering" organization? It 'depends on what the meaning of the word' "are" is (another reference for our friend Jason). Name that historical reference Jason.

Besides that particular one, "Matt Mc" left out a few more 'deliberately mis'leading shows: NPR, Slate, Daily Kos, Huffington Post, Talking Points Memo, Liberal Oasis, Wonkette, White House.gov, etc., etc.

Why do I post these? Because I'm nearly 100% sure that the die-hard fans of Jason's "work" lean a particular way and follow the organizations above. I'm 100% sure Jason leans that way and he said he does in stating '...the center caught up with me and passed on by to the right.' Many supposed "centrists" make statements like that.

The arrogance that almost always goes along with such political leanings is what guides Jason in his hyperbolic "reviews" of H2's AE.

Jason is here to save the great unwashed from themselves. Listen up, Southerners.

12/17/2013 11:13:25 am

I assume you mean "pinnacle" rather than "pentacle," but otherwise I have no idea what you are talking about. I'm not interested in political opinion programming, and I don't watch it. As I've mentioned, I hold a range of positions and my earlier statement about the movement of the center reflects my own experiences of holding some positions that were center-right in the 1990s and center-left in the 2010s without ever changing my views.

Anyone who considers that to arrogant hard-core leftism has placed dogma and ideology at the forefront of his thought.

If you insist on saying that my views are in service of an imaginary political agenda, I invite you to read my blog posts in which I (a) take Howard Zinn to task for his slipshod scholarship and (b) criticize Harry Reid and Barack Obama for supporting a UFO museum exhibit. I have also repeatedly criticized NBC and ABC for their longstanding advocacy of fringe history, even though those are networks you perceive as part of my allegedly "beloved" liberal media.

12/17/2013 01:36:11 pm

Just for the record I quit working at CNN two years after 9/11 because of ethical conflicts with a producers. I did however remain a freelance editor working for them until 2010

I also worked freelance from 2005 till 2008 for FOX news, so please do not claim I have any political bias. I have also worked at the conservative leaning Bloomberg TV. That said I have also worked freelance at CSPAN and spent 6 years working for the State dept. at for a state dept. run Arabic TC station called Al Hurra.

In 2008 I made a decision to move to ESPN becoming the daily show editor of Around the Horn and Pardon the Interruption because I was so disgusted with the world of live television news and the direction it had gone. Television news always has and always will be filler for the commercials but as it got more and more polarized I got more disgusted with it. I still miss working in live news but I do not miss the slant and spin that it has become. I will never be part of that world again and I frequently turn down freelance requests because of my decision. I know make a living as a freelance editor for many different production houses and am quite happy having step away from news.

I am a independent for professional reasons and I keep my political leanings private. I do so because the world I work I have to deal with many people from both sides of the aisle and it would be unprofessional of me to let my personal politics get in the way of my work and the environment I help provide for the hosts and guests. So if you are making claims about my personal politics you are wrong.

Also I never mentioned "PR, Slate, Daily Kos, Huffington Post, Talking Points Memo, Liberal Oasis, Wonkette, White House.gov, etc., etc." because they are not only are they not television show they are not a medium I have any professional work experience in.

I do however have a lot of experience in Documentary production and editing so I address what I know. What I do know is History Channel is doing a great disservice in letting shows like Ancient Aliens and even more so America Unearthed present themselves the way they do. And shows like them (along with Ghost Hunters, Ghost Adventures, Finding Bigfoot ect... which I also criticize just not on this forum because it is off topic) do the viewing public a great disservice and a irresponsible simple because they do not present the subject as speculative (to be fair AA does allude to speculation a lot). I would have no problem with AU if they simply added a disclaimer and stopped saying the "the history as we know it is wrong" and than pad the show with basic yet effective first year student film propaganda techniques to present sloppy science as fact. I will continue to be critical of shows like AU and its ilk. By working within the industry I can offer a unique voice and like the shows in question make claims to do. I can help educate people on the truth about the show from my perspective.

Maybe next episode if I have the patience and time I will sit down and do a technical breakdown of the propaganda techniques used in the show and demonstrate how the show is edited to deliberately mislead the viewer.

I believe we owe that to the viewers.. Oh yeah and I have done that with news programs in fact I guest speak regularly in media studies classes at local universities in the use of propaganda in television (mostly cable) news programs and in my presentation I criticize both the liberal and conservative networks. I firmly believe the only way to change this trend that has been happening in news and documentary style programs is to talk about it. And maybe just maybe one day a change can happen., but I doubt it.

Defend you friend all you want. I understand that. But the excuse its just TV is not a valid one. It is a very powerful medium that basically dictates our countries viewpoints. All sponsored and all crafted.

12/17/2013 01:41:50 pm

Jason wrote, 'If you insist on saying that my views are in service of an imaginary political agenda'

Nope. I'm saying your political views color the way you look at the world, including TV shows like AU. One way I can tell your political views is from your continued race baiting; thus, your continued use of race themes. I'm not the only one on these comments who is tired of your race baiting, Jason. It betrays your motive: to protect the great unwashed from themselves so you can validate your superiority.

12/18/2013 04:22:37 am

I do not view political fodder in the same way I view (supposedly) educational programing. Fox and MSNBC are clearly opinion-driven and most of their programming is debatable, biased, and politically-spun. While I don't like it, at least it's out in the open.
However, when a documentary-style show pretends to presents "facts" then I believe it should be held to a different standard. Since it has the ability to reach thousands of people, I believe it has a moral and ethical (although not legal) obligation to clearly state speculation from widely accepted (i.e. scientifically supported) facts.

12/19/2013 12:50:45 pm

Matt Mc --

You've brought up your work in TV before, and I'm honestly fascinated by it. I worked in regional cable production for a couple years before going back to school, and the thing that really put me off was the Bill Clinton sex scandal. I won't belabor it here, but maybe this would be a good topic for the Forum section of this site? I'd love to hear more about the propaganda techniques you see at play, and maybe throw some other ideas out there.

When you say you're editing, are you specifically editing film, are you a script editor, or are you taking part in it all?

12/19/2013 01:30:05 pm

Yeah forums sound good I will post something tomorrow as I sit in the editing bay waiting for some work to come in

12/17/2013 06:41:57 am

Look, the State Museum of Maine does not have on display controversial runestones which were shown in a variety of media, at least indicating that there was a lot of public interest in the objects. I wasted a trip there because I didn't think I would need a special appointment to see them. Is this the "academic world" interfering with speculative history? Yes, oh yes, very definitely.

Who made this policy and why? A controversial decision was made by a few possibly biased individuals, and artifacts were/are hidden away. Again, why?

I guess academic findings--though not definitive, must trump the public's interest. What nerve! For this one instance alone, I can see how Wolter is justified in accusing the academic world (Maine?) of not being up-front with we "lowly, uneducated" people.

Though I believe he is way off base on the Jesus Bloodline stuff, I do see Wolter as at least being willing to butt heads with some of these thwarters of speculative/alternative history. Hey, "The past is not dead...it's not even past." - Wm Faulkner

Here in MN, what I believe to be authentic "European" medieval objects are shown at a private, public museum, where the "authorities" can't summarily hide things away. (I'm glad the state of MN isn't involved with one item in particular.)

12/17/2013 11:27:23 am

Matt Mc- thanks very much for your perspective as someone with first hand experience and knowledge about programming and how the system works. I copied your comments and sent in to a number of individuals today.
Thanks Jason for the time and effort you put into these weekly reviews and exposing this type of dishonest programming. Keep it up, please!!!

12/17/2013 01:09:50 pm

It is painfully obvious to me that there needs to be a minimum I.Q. requirement to post comments here. I suggest the following test:

Answer the following true or false:

Scott Wolter is a trusted reporter who presents well researched, credible alternatives to mainline history.

Dave Lewis

12/17/2013 01:43:22 pm

That's very clever "Dave."

Rev. Gil Photsch

12/17/2013 01:12:53 pm

Its just a TV show.

Get real.

Lighten up.

12/17/2013 01:22:14 pm

They can't lighten up. Dave just made Scott a reporter now, to increase the severity of his imagined racist crimes. People like Dave think they are smarter than other people, even when they're not. A certain amount of smugness pervades this blog, but if one holds his nose, it can be tolerated.

12/17/2013 01:58:26 pm

Good point, Sir Gunn.

It's important to offer a sober look at a group like this from within. These comments are always a "pile on" in which those who share an imagined superiority receive validation from others who are similarly afflicted. Jason always throws the first stone, then his acolytes follow suit.

Insular academic campuses often suffer the same kinds of imagined superiority. By countering Jason and his cronies' melodramatic punditry of AU's and H2's heinous crimes, we're actually helping them get on the path to a more healthy world view.

Keep up the good work gentlemen.

Sir Gunn Sinclair link

12/17/2013 02:35:32 pm

Thank you, Sir Steve.

You know, I just remembered that in Wolter's X book, he took what I thought were incredible pains to avoid saying what the KRS seemed to be saying: that Native Americans killed and scalped (not sure about the order) ten men from the "exploring, land acquisition" mission. I did some researching myself and found an early Fourteenth century example in next-door SD of mass scalping, involving hundreds of victims. Also, disease for the cause of death--which Wolter said was possible (being politically correct, himself), is completely illogical, since the party of men were camped together and separated into two groups only to go fishing, probably for the day. Plague didn't work that selectively, killing off one entire group while the others all lived, even though they were all camped together probably just hours earlier.

So, in this case, I charge Wolter with over-supporting Native Americans, seeming almost unwilling even to insinuate that some of the hapless group of land-hungry wanderers may have been struck down by Native Americans concerned about their families' safety and prime hunting and fishing and trapping areas.

Clearly, Wolter was being careful and respectful of Native Americans in this medieval Upper Mid-western scenario, I thought to the point of being overly politically correct. I bring this example up to hopefully support the idea that Wolter is not racist, purposefully, or otherwise, especially towards First Arrivers' descendants. In this case, I believe he went actually too far out of his way to be extra "fair" to Native Americans, given the available information about the surrounding circumstances.

12/18/2013 11:47:39 am

Well its obvious that I am smarter than you!

Dave Lewis

12/17/2013 02:57:38 pm

LOL … Touched a *nerve* I guess ...

Matt

12/17/2013 03:36:16 pm

Jason: Another great and hilarious review on your part. I stumbled on this show about a month ago and I am amazed at the stupidity of Wolter. He jumps from one conclusion to the next and appears to "talk himself" into his preposterous conclusions.

In this episode, the so-called wall looks a lot like the shattered limestone we see here and Iowa. These quarries provide gravel for roads, etc. Makes me wonder if the fools in this episode have ever seen a quarry before.

This episode for me highlights another common theme that Wolter uses a lot in the episodes that I have seen: That Native Americans had nothing better to do than construct walls, mounds, pyramids, etc., rather than spend time on stuff like you know, GATHER FOOD, build shelters, etc!

Joe

12/17/2013 04:13:45 pm

I do not think that many of commentators here understand Jason's central point in criticizing Wolter's work. Nowhere does Jason call Scott Wolter a racist and has continually stated that he does not think he is a racist, just that Scott does not conduct proper research and base his theories on outdated work. As I understand Jason's argument he is stating that Wolter is basing his ideas on Templars in America and now the Lost Ark in America on theories that were created to justify racial policies and rationalize ideas of European cultural superiority. I know Gunn has continually stated that Jason and others are ignoring pre-columbian European voyages, but again he agrees that there is evidence of such voyages. Just not the extent that Scott Wolter claims. That others claim that Jason is race bating but again I do not think you see the central point. Wolter and other fringe historians like to utilize ideas and theories that were presented in the 1800s when people were attempting to utilize false scientific logic and trying to turn older myths into explanations of European racial superiority. Wolter is using these theories to explain his beliefs without understanding their origins or the view point of their originators.

Now the other argument of its “just a TV Show” seems to be a cop out altogether. You are calling Scott your “friend and colleague” but your only defense for his work is that it is just a TV show and to lighten up. Do you not believe the work your friend is doing? Do you feel he is just an entertaining TV host? Also do you think that it is the best way of getting people interested in American history is by showing unsubstantiated theories based on poor research? Seriously it takes Jason less then a day to examine each of these episodes and conduct the research to show the origins of these theories and the work being presented is false from the very beginning.

12/18/2013 04:23:13 am

Again … patiently … not for the first time …

Of course, any and all of the claims and findings put forward on the "America Unearthed" H2 TV shows can and should be discussed, critiqued, hashed-over, etc., etc. … I have never indicated anything otherwise …

What is not clear about that … ???

HOWEVER … I have also entirely consistently and honestly and appropriately and honorably and calmly risen to defend the character of Scott Wolter when he is ATTACKED as a person, when his honesty is questioned, whenever HE is ridiculed …

What is not clear about that … ???

I have also -- always -- indicated that I think that the "America Unearthed" H2 TV shows have a positive value in provoking and encouraging interest in and discussion of North American history and pre-history …

What is unclear about that … ??? Why is that a problem … ???

And, yes … I have consistently encouraged viewers-- and critics -- to *lighten*up* about these TV shows precisely because they ARE "TV shows" … They are commercially produced and broadcast in order to attract a viewing audience in order to try to get them to watch the accompanying adverts … THAT is commercial TV … The "America Unearthed" H2 TV shows AREN'T of the quality and import of, say, "NOVA," or "Frontline" … VERY few TV shows are such ...

12/18/2013 12:15:57 pm

Well said, Rev. Gotsch.

I've said similar things in the comments on this board, while under attack by another of Jason's cronies with the nickname of Crabbie - an angry failed academic who was simply jealous that Scott had the microphone and he didn't. (He openly admitted this, by the way).

But it's so much more fun for Jason and his cronies to "pile on" and keep up the public personal attacks. And yes, Jason, you make personal attacks. You long ago stopped being a dispassionate academic wanna-be blogger, and became an angry pundit like Rachel Maddow, Ed Schultz, Lawrence O'Donnell, Al Sharpton, and the former (thank God) Keith Olbermann. I'm sure you take that as a complement.

Your writeup about this show, for instance, chose to exaggerate the amount of time that Wolter spends operating heavy equipment to appear manly. I thought I should sit down and time the show to prove how little time was actually spent on that activity as a percentage of the whole, but I have better things to do. Your acolytes will certainly never fact check you. They're too busy piling on.

12/18/2013 01:39:29 pm

Originally posted in the wrong thread. I'm reposting here where it actually belongs....

Do you say that about Scott Wolter's books? You referenced one of them on another thread as being definitive accounts of why we should accept his Kensington Rune Stone claims. So are you OK with me criticizing his newest book, the one that claims Oreo cookies are part of a conspiracy to hide the truth about Jesus' reign as king in Syria, or is that not meant to be serious either? I did a 4-part review of that book, and I heard not a peep out of you regarding his bizarre claims about Mary Magdalene codes, Oreo cookies, and Nazi ethnography.

At some point either you have to admit that Wolter intends for his ideas to be taken seriously, or he's doing performance art. If it's the former, then shut up since you admit that we should be critiquing his ideas. If it's the latter, then he is the James Franco of historiography, and you can safely leave us while we engage in art criticism.

12/18/2013 02:17:06 pm

No …

I haven't claimed that Scott Wolter's book on the KRS is "definitive" … That is YOUR term, not mine … I do think that his studies ALL indicate "authenticity" …

As to Scott's other books … Go ahead … Discuss and critique them as to their CONTENT, while avoiding snarky comments about PERSONS … It's not that difficult …

Dude

1/1/2014 12:17:09 am

Phil, lighten up. It's only a blog.

12/18/2013 03:21:07 pm

Rev. Gotch,

I understand that you have repeated yourself, and yes I do think most people understand the underline economic principals in the television medium. I also understand that you are a friend a colleague of Mr. Wolter's and find it necessary to defend him when you feel comments become to personal. But I need to repeat my questions from earlier. Do you believe in his work on the TV show and in published books? Do you prescribe to the idea of pre-Columbian voyages to North America by Knights Templar to hide the truth of the Christian Holy Blood Line? Do you believe the Ark of the Covenant is hidden in North America? The reason I am asking is because this is why most people are commenting on this blog, they do not believe in these theories. His theories are based on pseudo scientific ideas that have been proven false time and time again. That he does not utilize proper research techniques, archeological practices or review original sources when possible.

For example: He has enough time to fly to Ireland and schedule an interview with a local historian, but doesn't have the time or do the research to show that the story is based on a fictional poem that the original author admits it is false. Also how is it honest and /or authentic in his work to have an entire show questioning if a wall is artificially constructed or natural when he knew from the beginning that it was a natural structure. I know you will say it is to create a dramatic TV episode, but again the entire episode is not necessary. If he is being honest in his work and research why even bother with this episode at all.

Now I have not read every posting by Jason so I can not comment on your claim of personal attacks. But when criticizing his work it is easy for a friend to feel like it is a personal attack, especially when it appears that Wolter puts so much of his personal reputation on his claims.

12/18/2013 03:47:10 pm

As I have indicated previously, my interest in taking part in this blog is simply to defend the character of my personal friend and professional colleague, Scott Wolter, who hosts the H2 "America Unearthed" TV shows …

Do I endorse all the claims and ideas and conclusions presented in that series … ??? No ...

12/19/2013 12:51:45 am

I understand your want to protect your friend. As I do not know Wolter personally I cannot state for his character on a daily "normal" basis. I however can speak to his public persona, which I honestly do not have much to say expected that he comes across as a pig headed know it all.

When one takes a job or position as a public figure (be they a TV host, novelist, politician, ect.....) they open themselves up for public ridicule. Wolter has done this, he has chosen the persona (whether it is his or a "media" persona like Bill P'Reilly whom I have defended on this blog because I have worked for and with him and he is much different in his private life) that he presents to the public. He chose to be the person who invented a new science, he chose to look like a bully and dismissive to some of his guest (yes the producers have a role in this, but by continuing to be on the show he accepts the producers decision), he chose to look as if he is ignoring evidence, he choose to be presented as an expert.

All of his decision have left him open to criticism and sadly personal attacks it is what happens to public figures. If you are really concerned about people making assumptions based on the public figure Wolter has chosen it would be much more fruitful not to talk to those ridiculing him based on what he choose to make public and to talk to Wolter himself and maybe help him understand how he is presenting himself to public.

Now honestly the ridicule of Wolter in the public is small, a few blogs like this and some bad reviews on IMBD, and most likely a bunch of garbage on forums. Compared to most public figures he is getting off real easy.

So I can understand why you would not like people disparaging a friend but he chose to be a public figure (and he is paid for it) and it comes with the territory.

This is not a criticism, just so food for thought. Just be glad Wolter is not at then level of Obama or O'Reilly or even Paris Hilton. You would exhaust yourself trying to get people to stop talking bad about him.

Media and public life is a bitch, it can be very rewarding, but it also comes with a lot of thorns and barbs. Once you put yourself out their the first thing that comes is ridicule and it only grows and it is up to the public figure to deal with it. The more public you become the thicker skinned you need to be and sadly so do the family and friends.

12/18/2013 04:30:10 pm

Well Reverend, I find your loyalty admirable. I do not think I could spend the time you have reviewing blog posts and their subsequent comments for attacks on my personal friends. Mr. Wolter is lucky to have such a dedicated and loyal friend such as yourself.

12/19/2013 11:19:18 am

Thank you, Joe …

Along with my personal and professional loyalty to my friend and colleague, I am also personally and professionally inclined to point out the necessary distinction between honest "disagreement" and personal animus ...

Jas0n C0lavit0's clone

1/25/2014 01:06:06 pm

So here's the thing about your website.
I've been spending the last few hours poking around and looking at your reviews, accreditation, and well done argumentation.
The best thing about a well fashioned argument is how effect it is at building consensus. But what i think I need from you, and Scott Wolter alike is some well substantiated facts.

You do provide facts for particular claims you make, and I admit you've done a large amount of research. But honestly, it seems like you're just mad that you didn't get a T.V. show or a documentary contract. My biggest problem with you is claiming that Scott Wolter is a racist. THIS IS A REALLY SERIOUS CLAIM, and I'm not convinced you're any less racist than he presumably is.

Now I know you (as the big America Unearthed fan you are) have seen the episodes where he speculates on the expansive unrepresented history of pre-colonial Americans i.e. the many tribes and nations that existed here before colonists. I'm confused by your claim of him being a racist because never have we heard him say "all non-europeans were incapable of building complex structures." or anything like "those who potentially traveled here came to enslave/dominate/rule the previous inhabitants whom they viewed as lesser." What we quite often here Wolter say is that the ruins he is inspecting (quite often but not always) does not correlate with those of American pre-colonial populations. So please explain his alleged racism.

I do understand that he has a seemingly unhealthy relationship with attempting to prove the history of the Knights of Templar. I also agree that he jumps to conclusions that quickly (and falsely) connect pieces of history that are not connected. But how do his quick conclusions lead directly to racism? He is attempting to drawn connections between world travelers, sailing societies, and/or alleged secret societies and America. Is that really as bad as you've been making it out to be? I think not (and i really think you're just angry that you aren't doing more to prove your theories)

Honestly I don't find the show to be extremely convincing. That's because it is entertainment and since American's (sadly) turn to the television for their history, I'd rather have a show like this than Ancient Aliens on. Not that causing a ruckus on the internet is going to stop H2 from making money off either show... as entertainment.
I mean seriously man. Ancient Aliens is actually a RACIST show. Much more than that it makes those of us who do believe in alternative history look like crackpots.

The fact of the matter is America Unearthed isn't hurting anyone any more than the massive amounts of WW1, WW2, and Apocalypse propaganda that H2, History, and other cable channels broadcast. You're just taking advantage of the spotlight that the show has gathered. Basking in the light to bash the effort to get people interested in possible alternative history.

Why don't you just try to work with Scott Wolter if you're so pissed off about the show? If you really think it is racist why don't you get some work done to stop any other type, any substantial type, of racism First Nation folks deal with? Why would you start a blog that reviews all of the episodes gathering further interest in the H2 show if you really dislike/disagree with it? Jason, I bet you're a really interesting and intelligent guy (just like you say about Wolter before you bash him repeatedly), so why don't you do a little more to bring your legitimate concerns to broadcast television or academia?

I assume it is because, like most of us (including myself), you believe complaining on the internet is going to create massive action and change the world. But allow me to quote sociologist and philosopher Jean Baudrillard and say "Why hasn't everything already disappeared?" Why hasn't the massive weight of popular consensus fueled a revolution? Why haven't all the critics, critiques, and data changed the way we view our world?

The answer? The very means we thought would bring about our liberation have become that which imprisons us.

Have a nice day. Keep writing on your website. Keep drawing people to America Unearthed. Keep complaining about the lumpenproletariat too entertained to realize the racist, sexist, jingoist, world around them. Oh, and be sure to continue to obsess over a single show that does little to nothing to support or challenge the structurally racist powers that exist in America (and the world).

BTW.
I'm not some elite white dude trying to knock you down, or some privileged kid that refuses to use his critical thinking skills. I'm just a young mixed race individual that exists in a world that refuses to look at the complexity of its own existence.
To end I'd like to finish with Slavoj Zizek in mind:
There are the duped, who consume information.
But much more dangerously there are the non-duped who believe they cannot err (that's you Jason Colavito). Those who see the treachery and work against it, truly believing the

1/25/2014 01:39:57 pm

I've never claimed he is a racist. I've said he uses claims that originated with racists, and that he has made claims that can have racist effects vis-à-vis Native Americans. But Scott Wolter is not a racist.

I review plenty of shows here. If you choose to read reviews of only one and call it obsession, that's your problem, not mine.

samlyle

1/31/2014 08:33:02 am

If the walls are short pieces why didn't they show the ends?
Another way that rocks can have uniform magnetic polarization, is if they had been in close proximity for a very long time under water.
I think that if geologist where to find such an enormous natural formation he'd be the first to want to dig it up and put it on display.

samlyle didn't proofread

1/31/2014 12:14:44 pm

I meant to say, "I think that if a geologist were to find such an enormous natural formation he'd be the first to want to dig it up and put it on display."

Adam

2/17/2014 07:46:53 pm

Kudos to the old gentleman trying to find answers for the town using HIS equipment and HIS money to show them the truth. The problem being, the scientists used one of many useless tests to determine anything viable AND took a tiny useless sample size. (i.e. nothing was proven except blatant disregard for the truth, and a perfect example of how garbage like this will continue to destroy the future of our children by with-holding the true details of anything with historical significance and interest). Don't believe it! I have never yelled so much at the TV after this episode...wow. In any case, it would look like a slam dunk scientific review to those that never studied review process or only obtained their information from TV for that matter. Another tactic to mislead the public.
The greatest thing of all, before this disgusting episode was aired, was when the host was wrongly reporting on the Denver International/ NWO, meanwhile above his head in the films were nothing but blatant GEOengineering.
For example, see:
http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/
For those that doubt this, see this:
http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/documents-2/
and also this on youtube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jf0khstYDLA

http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/documents/vol3ch15.pdf

Explain this one History Channel, after all, all of you are inhaling IT along with our children. Sorry your staffers have to suffer along side the children of the world who do not even have a voice at this time in their lives.
H2....you are done airing in my household.

I have a life

3/22/2014 01:52:42 pm

Who cares

ShellIB

2/18/2015 02:40:44 am

I stopped watching this show after this episode. I live only 150 miles from Rockwall and never knew any of this. It was really disappointing to see his bullshit claims. By his standards my house is a natural formation.
I did find this interesting video about the entire electromagnetism report that he cherry picked through to come up with his claim.
Someone has probably already posted it by now, but here it is again:
http://youtu.be/Mp1Ylg7EZPU

Brian B

11/28/2015 09:20:52 pm

I enjoy watching conspiracy and other type shows as entertainment. Unfortunately this was the first episode of the show I ever watched. Because there was no twist at the end showing it was built by ancient civilization but a natural formation, I assumed Wolter was legitimate and the show might be legit. It took the Templar shows I watched that made me realize exactly what the show was about. I am not an archeologist and have only a little experience with this subject so I was caught. I till enjoy watching the show but I know not to take it seriously anymore.

Josh

11/13/2017 11:26:25 am

As much as this episode was an even bigger nothingburger than most of the other shows, I feel that this was the closest episode to what the show could have been. It is literally unearthing America and showing historical findings that aren’t taught in US history, outside certain locations. Of course, he could have done a better job, similar to how “How the Earth Was Made”, and done away with the racist undertones, but for a show this bad, it was a rare gem.

Your comment will be posted after it is approved.