Scott Roberts and John Ward Offer Sizzle Reel for New Fringe History Show

10/30/2014

Yesterday, Scott Alan Roberts and John Ward released a sizzle reel for their proposed television series, History Trippers, which would find the two journeying around the world investigating historical mysteries, the occult, the paranormal, and what academics are hiding. The sizzle reel is below, and I strongly recommend you watch it in full. It has to be seen to be believed.

In the interest of disclosure, I need to remind readers that I have exchanged emails with Roberts, who has invited me to next year’s Paradigm Symposium, which he runs. I have not spoken with Roberts about his program or the video you’re about to watch because to do so would prejudice my judgment about his proposed program.

First, some preliminaries: In the video John Ward identifies himself as “Dr.” John Ward and as an archaeologist. According to a biography Ward published in Paradigm Symposium documents, his alleged doctorate is an unaccredited award from a Knights Templar fan club in Britain called the “Hereditary Knights Templar of Britannia,” which is not authorized to award academic degrees. This organization, in turn, claims to be “confirmed by the Vatican,” but the Catholic Church denied any such recognition in a letter to Father Jack Ashcraft: “All other orders, whether of recent origin or mediaeval foundation, are not recognised by the Holy See.”

Roberts, readers will recall, operates the Paradigm Symposium and publishes Intrepid magazine. He is also the author of a book on the Nephilim and speculation about ancient astronauts.

So that brings us to the video, which I find it difficult to discuss because of the choices that the pair made in creating this pitch reel, which they produced through TCA Media, a “low cost” media services company. We can dispense with some of the aesthetic questions first: Did you notice that the title sequence combines elements from many of cable television’s most popular fringe history series? There’s a bit of Ancient Aliens and a dash of America Unearthed. The logo for History Trippers is reminiscent of the word mark for Ancient Aliens and In Search of Aliens in terms of typeface choices, and the reveal of the title as sand blows off of an inscribed version is virtually identical to that of In Search of Aliens. And the title History Trippers? It is terrible. It sounds like a druggie version of Drunk History. It has a lot of ironic potential for describing the content of the show, though!

But when we move beyond the trappings of cable’s mystery-mongering shows, we see a more interesting aesthetic choice: Both Roberts and Ward are dressed as Alan Quartermain (a particularly Victorian variety of the Indiana Jones look), and they occupy a space decorated as a Victorian Explorers’ Club drawing room, complete with colonial bric-a-brac spangling the walls. Their costuming and their Victorian drawing room base of operations lends a disturbingly colonialist undercurrent to the efforts of two middle aged white men to travel across former colonies and mandates to impose their own reading onto the history of the African and Near Eastern peoples they meet. That Ward is from Britain, the former colonial power in Egypt, doesn’t help. It’s as though they have purposely elected to emulate the romantic idea of Victorian scholar-adventurers like Richard Burton in complete ignorance of the imperialist and colonialist ideology that is inseparable from Victorian anthropology.

Alan Quartermain in an early illustration from the sequel to King Solomon's Mines, in which the hero seeks out a lost white race in Africa. Sean Connery's version wore a cravat like John Ward.

Seriously: Two men dressed as Victorian Great White Hunters gallivanting across North Africa and the Near East telling the people there that they know the real truth about their history, and exploiting that history for gain? Who thought this was a good idea?

At the same time, Roberts and Ward have complicated the Victorian aesthetic in a way that, if I attributed intention or self-awareness to them, might have raised important questions about the underlying dynamics of Victorian sexual repression. Honestly, when I watched this the first time I thought Roberts and Ward were a couple, only to learn that both men are straight and married to women. (The line in which they argue about which of them is the “straight man” made me laugh inappropriately.) The choice to emphasize their personal relationship in terms of physical affection, declarations of love, and tomfoolery at the expense of delineating specific content for the proposed show is, frankly, baffling. I get that they don’t want to limit the proposed show’s range of potential content so it can be adapted to any network’s needs, but I am hard pressed to find a way of describing the choices that they made in depicting their relationship that don’t involve reading them as a couple, especially when we combine their “bromance” with their effete performance and their dandified clothing choices—a cravat for Ward, a scarf for both. The less said about the phallic symbolism of their umbrella joust the better.

Now don’t get me wrong: I’m not criticizing Roberts or Ward in terms of real-life personality, or in terms of their actual real-world friendship, which I am sure is warm and fulfilling. I speak only in terms of their on-camera performance—and every on-camera appearance is a performance, even when playing oneself. Nor, frankly, would it have been a problem were they actually a gay couple. It is precisely because they are not that it reads against convention and defies audience expectations. It may not be right, but we cannot change culture overnight.

Cable TV shows recognize the risk that a pair of fringe history explorers who are too into one another will read sexually (TV doesn’t do subtlety, and emotions read broader on camera), and I don’t think it’s much of a stretch to say that they also recognize that the audience for such programs is older and conservative, especially for the Bible-based programs. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that History’s two fringe history shows that feature a pair of male investigators (Curse of Oak Island, Search for the Lost Giants) both feature brothers, while other fringe shows either feature a lone wolf investigator or a large team. Such groupings help to keep sex out of it, all the better to let viewers develop their own unidirectional relationships to the characters that the investigators play on their shows. (Cf. Giorgio Tsoukalos as sex symbol.) To be extremely cynical: I think that Roberts’s and Ward’s self-depiction in the video will complicate their efforts to bring the show to air.

This gets into some interesting questions about the arbitrary cultural line we draw between behaviors associated with friends and lovers, and these lines move over time. The Victorians were much more open to same sex platonic affection than post-World War I culture, for example. It is precisely this ambiguity over the dividing line that allows for plausible homoerotic readings of some pre-World War I genre fiction. Owen Wister’s The Virginian (1902) has been read by James Gifford as the narrator’s homoerotic love affair with a cowboy until the cowboy jilts the narrator to marry and raise a family. Richard Phillips, writing in Mapping Men and Empire, specifically notes that the male heroes of Victorian adventure fiction (particularly of the colonial variety) were often seen as objects of homoerotic desire for their (presumably) male readers, despite the denials of many adventure authors. This gets into a lot of complex sexual politics that are far beyond my purpose here, which is to note that Ward and Roberts made a video that reads very differently than they intended, but which is ironically in keeping with the spirit of the aesthetic they’ve chosen to adopt.

spookyparadigm

10/30/2014 06:48:21 am

The Downey/Law Sherlock Holmes movie made a lot of money off a steampunk bromance.

Clete

10/30/2014 06:49:49 am

Funny, one of the last scenes reminded me of the final scene of "The Last Crusade". Where everyone rides their horses off into the sunset.

Scotty Roberts link

11/21/2014 01:18:41 am

Precisely why we filmed it. ;)

Matt Mc

10/30/2014 06:58:33 am

Oh that was painful to watch, nothing worse than poorly miced and mixed audio.

Scotty Roberts link

11/21/2014 12:45:12 am

Th audio was actually very well done, save for the scenes that had to be shot with a smaller, hand-held camera, or additional footage we had coming in from other sources, unattached to a filming project.

The Egyptian stuff was our own footage, not filmed by TMC, who happen to be industry award-winning independent filmmakers and documentarians.

The editing was superb and top-notch, even raising the eyebrows of some of the studio/network execs affiliated with this project.

the Google+ thingie with Dr. J.R Ward's postings

11/21/2014 02:01:13 pm

links to a site with this tidy paragraph

[quote]
"Kaper is now putting forward an entirely different explanation. He argues that the army did not disappear, but was defeated. ‘My research shows that the army was not simply passing through the desert; its final destination was the Dachla Oasis. This was the location of the troops of the Egyptian rebel leader Petubastis III. He ultimately ambushed the army of Cambyses, and in this way managed from his base in the oasis to reconquer a large part of Egypt, after which he had himself crowned Pharaoh in the capital, Memphis.’ [unquote]

10/30/2014 07:18:42 am

"only to learn that both men are... married to women"

So was Oscar Wilde. (Shhhh... It's a Victorian thing....)

But serioulsy, I completely agree with your opinion concerning the homosexual vibes and the likely consequences for the show's marketability to its presumed core audience. It shouldn't matter, of course, and so your opinion says more about the audience than the pair's appearance. I also applaud you for expressing it so frankly, even though you're running the risk of being unfairly accused of homophobia by your opponents. (By the way, I would go further and say that either they are in fact more or less closeted homosexuals, or they are, for whatever bizarre reason, intentionally mimicking offensive homosexual stereotypes in a manner that has no place on TV. Because I refuse to give credence to the idea that this is accidental.)

Where I disagree is your criticism of the supposedly colonialist overtones. I don't think they are really "telling the people there" anything in any significant way. They are telling things to their audience here. And in any case, we don't seem to have any problem ciriticizing claims we deem to be pseudohistorical, even when they come from former colonies - and we don't even do any "gallivating"!

I'm sure you do not support kind of knee-jerk opposition to scientific claims from sources deemed to be colonialist that is responsible for AIDS quackery in Sub-Saharan Africa or for efforts to eliminate calculus from school curriculum in parts of India. If so, then I think that (unfortunately) fairness compels us to treat it as a red herring in this case as well. (Unless you think that they have some special responsibility due to being on TV, but that's certainly debatable.)

Jason Colavito link

10/30/2014 11:46:26 am

It's not homophobia--I could not care less whether TV hosts are gay; in fact, having a gay perspective on ancient history would be a refreshing change of pace. The problem is that we still live in a world where TV networks assume that audiences will freak out if there is a hint of unexpected gayness. (The key is that the freak out is assumed to come if there isn't sufficient warning.) Cartoon Network censored a brief gay kiss, for Pete's sake!

http://www.avclub.com/article/cartoon-network-censored-its-first-gay-kiss-211216

10/30/2014 03:06:26 pm

That's one half of the sentiment I expressed above. The other half, which I'm sure you'll also admit, is that it would be unfortunate if someone gave them spotlight as a freakshow (which is what it would be to their audience) meant to amuse the audience with how "gay" they are.

Scotty Roberts link

11/21/2014 01:00:38 am

In my opinion and experience, it is real men know how to tell real men that they love them. John Ward is a dear friend, and he holds a place amongst the very few men that I love dearly.

I tend to be verbose, so bear with me, here...

Love isn't cheap, nor is it a thing that is given cavalierly. For a man to tell another man that he loves him, Straight, Gay or otherwise, is something that has become wholly absent - and sometimes damn near abhorrent - in our culture. It bears an anathema that Real Men need to overcome.

And, to be honest, I state openly my love for my dear friend because society looks at it askance - and I enjoy thumbing my nose at it. I'll be damned if I allow some backward social moré posturing to disallow me from telling someone whom I love that 'I love them.' Period.

When I was in church ministry, many years ago, I was a youth pastor, and later lead a men's group. The purpose, in part, was to talk about how "real men," when expressing real love, aren't displaying their "feminine side," but rather expressing true masculinity, at its core. Real men love, real men "stick by the stuff," real men are committed to their families and friends.

Jason, while being an excellent researcher on some levels, displays what I would consider to be, an immaturity in Life, especially in light of the fact that there is some need on his part to isolate male friendship as a detractor to one's ability to be a genuine person, or an academically-minded researcher - which is at the core of his diatribe.

As for our "Victorian" clothing, John is British and wears tweeds, a cravat and sometimes carries an umbrella. Things WHOLLY inappropriate for an academic, my God!!

We both wear hats. I suppose if we dressed in black tee shirts and reversed baseball caps, we'd be much more acceptable. The fact that we "dress well" is not affectatious, and it is part of who we have always been and what we bring to the table.

And, for the record, since when is wearing a tweed sport coat, untucked linen dress shirt, vest, pocket kerchief, hat and scarf and jeans or khakis and tennis shoes considered to be "Victorian?" Hahaha.

We were approached to create this project because of who we are, not because to create some sort of theatrical bullshit.

Real men love deeply, and only real men who have overcome the need to obfuscate that, have come to terms with what a real man really is.

'Nuff said.

11/21/2014 11:25:48 am

"there is some need on [Jason's] part to isolate male friendship as a detractor to one's ability to be a genuine person, or an academically-minded researcher - which is at the core of his diatribe."

I think you were trying tooo hard to sound "academically-minded" there... In any case, no one is saying there is anything wrong with male friendship (sexual or otherwise). What we are saying is that it is wrong for you two to prance around like Bible tract caricatures of gay men, regardless of whether you two are gay.

Only Me

10/30/2014 08:05:01 am

Utterly horrible. What did the mutual stroking of egos have to do with pitching their proposal?

I hate to think these two goofs will get the greenlight, and we'll have *another* show telling the audience about how everything they've been taught is wrong. But never fear! These two "experts" will set everything right!

Byron DeLear

10/30/2014 02:21:55 pm

Having been in production for 20th, etc., I think somewhere along the way in pre-production the thought was floated that in order to sell the show through, Roberts and Ward had to become "television personalities" --- that this is what really drives reality tv; characters. So they left out any good stories or content they may have.The improvised goof-factor is reminiscent of the Naked Archaeologist, Simcha Jacobovici. It seems like a test reel, or kinda like one of those after school tv science shows 20 years ago.

Only Me

10/30/2014 03:11:46 pm

That sounds reasonable.

However, it just *feels* wrong. Neither Carl Sagan nor Neil DeGrasse Tyson became "characters", and both of their respective versions of Cosmos have been successful. The same can be said of Don Wildman and Mysteries at the Museum. It can even be argued that Curse of Oak Island, a reality series, has more appeal because the brothers aren't portraying themselves as "characters".

I guess this is par for the course when it comes to this type of show.

10/30/2014 03:40:54 pm

"it just *feels* wrong. Neither Carl Sagan nor Neil DeGrasse Tyson became "characters", and both of their respective versions of Cosmos have been successful"

More importantly, neither became a "character" embodying what a reasonable person is almost certain to see as negative stereotyping of homosexuals. Especially given the core audience of these shows.

(It's like becoming a blackface "character" in a show aimed at the white Southerners.)

Paul Cargile

10/31/2014 02:57:53 am

"(It's like becoming a blackface "character" in a show aimed at the white Southerners.)"

As a white southerner I wouldn't find blackface entertaining, and find the remark prejudicedagainst and ignorant of current Southern culture.

An Over-Educated Grunt

10/31/2014 04:02:35 am

As Paul said, EP. I had a snide response prepared, but I find your responses needlessly hostile even when I'm not the target. I can't change your tone, but I can not use it myself.

10/31/2014 05:58:58 am

Hostile to what, exactly?

Nothing about my comments suggests that all white Southerners are racist. Or that everyone who watches these H/H2 shows is a homophobe, for that matter.

An Over-Educated Grunt

10/31/2014 06:14:36 am

You really want a rundown?

How about how you lob around "shitposting" and "no one cares what you think," then act like these are statements of fact rather than your own personal opinion? How about how you routinely engage in stupid nitpicking and correction of things that don't even need correcting? How about your recent exchange with Byron that basically boils down to "look how much smarter I am than you," just one of many such series of posts you've made? It's not even that you're factually incorrect, it's that you seem determined that anyone who doesn't share your views must be not just wrong, but worthy of your scorn and ridicule.

You're a humanities person, you of all people should know that once the words are out of your mouth, it doesn't matter how you intended them to be read, they're read how the audience wants to read it. There's two people here who've said they found your "it's like becoming a blackface "character" in a show aimed at white southerners" offensive. You don't get to decide what someone else finds offensive; you only get to decide what comes out of your mouth, and frankly you don't seem interested in being anything other than a raging jerk to anyone who doesn't meet your standards.

Tell you what on this one - prove me wrong. Explain to me how your last line, "it's like becoming a blackface "character" in a show aimed at the white Southerners," isn't offensive and adds context to your post. Let's start with "aimed at the white Southerners." How would that sound if we rearranged that to "aimed at the Negro?" "Aimed at the homosexual?" More to the point, what does it ADD to your comment? It's not a particularly compelling example, it doesn't explain your remarks further, it just makes you look like you think that all white southerners go around calling anyone who's not white "boy" or "uncle" or "mammy."

10/31/2014 06:46:37 am

Oh, you meant in general, not just in this instance! I see...

First of all, I refuse to respond to anyone white-knighting for ".", because that's just ridiculous. As for Byron, I explicitly stated what my beef was in that case. I invite you to consider whether my responses can be interpreted differently in light of that.

"you routinely engage in stupid nitpicking and correction of things that don't even need correcting"

Is *this* a statement of fact, or just your opinion? :)

Ignoring your juvenile name-calling, if something doesn't need correcting, people are free to not correct it. I thought it's that simple.

"you seem determined that anyone who doesn't share your views must be not just wrong, but worthy of your scorn and ridicule."

Not *anyone*! Surely you realize that. But some people are, to one extent or another. If you fail to see that overwhelming majority of my exchanges (with non-crazy people) is perfectly respectful, then I are suffering from selective memory.

"once the words are out of your mouth, it doesn't matter how you intended them to be read, they're read how the audience wants to read it."

It matters in the sense that if the audience reads them in ways that are unreasonable we can usually tell. (Case in point.)

"You don't get to decide what someone else finds offensive; you only get to decide what comes out of your mouth"

No, I also get to decide whether their interpretation of and response to my words is reasonable, though of course people may disagree about that as well. Right?

"you don't seem interested in being anything other than a raging jerk to anyone who doesn't meet your standards."

You have a rather *broad* definition of "raging" in that case.

As for the rest of it, I'm not going to defend my analogy. I am confident that reasonable people not prejudiced against me personally are going to see it for what it is. Also, I might as well claim that your apparent outrage at my allusion to the South's historical and ongoing racial issues makes *you* look like Paula Deen. But I won't. Because that's obviously absurd and unfair to you.

Byron DeLear

10/31/2014 09:12:01 am

EP, you’ve been repeatedly called out for having a very combative and hostile tone by several folks here, and I’m sure many echo those sentiments but have chosen not to engage either out of fear of the resultant, petulant lambasting; or that they specifically have just been lucky enough to not have been selected as your “target du jour.”

You claim your exchanges have been “perfectly respectful” with “non-crazy people,” and yet our recent exchange where I made the observation that your propensity to be hyper-critical, excessively negative and argumentative was countered by you with childish, churlish insults like, “Nah, nah, I’m smarter than you,” and “Un-huh… you're acting like an immature child” --- only because I made the suggestion that your tone is overly harsh and negative most of the time, and that it might be good to add a modicum of decent respect.

To add to this, you persist in this behavior behind an insulated veil of anonymity, and IMHO, it’s an anonymity that you abuse like a common internet troll. And this is what’s disappointing EP, because we all know you’re not a common internet troll, and speaking for myself, which I’ve mentioned here before, I appreciate your running commentary on Jason’s blog; I appreciate your intelligence, verve, smarts, but it’s your manners at times which are abrasive and a turn-off. The inimitable Gore Vidal once told me in his best Twain: internet critics who are unwilling to unmask are “un-significant.” His point, I think, is that there’s no real accountability or underpinning to the one’s actions when incessantly castigating others behind a mask. There is an axiomatic expression that one should “praise in public, but correct in private,” but this is impossible because you’re anonymous, and although I may know more than that, I would never expose that here out of respect for your decision to remain anonymous. We’ve also all been told not to “feed the trolls,” and wisdom might hint that a successful strategy would be just to avoid the causticity of your pen; but EP, I just wanted to express to you a wish and desire that you might hear *some* truth in this criticism, and try to be more responsive to requests that you refrain from excessive negativity, and in general, reduce the dick-like behavior. Of course, you’ll accuse me of “feigned magnanimity,” etc. etc. – and that I’m a “internet journalist,” and that you’re of course vastly smarter than me, all which is laughable and shows deep insecurity, etc. etc. --- but EP, I still have hope that you might let your ego get out of the way for just a glimmer and find some value in this critique and adjust accordingly, instead of merely casting it aside out-of-hand.

10/31/2014 09:51:06 am

"you’ve been repeatedly called out for having a very combative and hostile tone by several folks here"

I've also had apparent death threats made against me. What's your point?

"You claim your exchanges have been..."

"The overwhelming majority" of my exchanges, to be precise. That makes a huge difference. If you don't feel that ours is one of them. Well... okay... It's not like you haven't already made your point and received my response.

"childish, churlish insults like, “Nah, nah, I’m smarter than you,”"

Yeah, that's exactly what I said. Good job.

"only because I made the suggestion that your tone is overly harsh and negative most of the time, and that it might be good to add a modicum of decent respect."

That is not why. I already explained why.

"I appreciate your intelligence, verve, smarts, but it’s your manners at times which are abrasive and a turn-off."

By "manners" you mean my refusal to sugarcoat it when someone says things that are self-contradictory, hypocritical, absurd, factually baseless, bigoted, ignorant, pretentious, etc.? Because if you can find an instance when nothing like these applies, I'll happily apologize to whoever I inadvertently offended.

"The inimitable Gore Vidal once told me"

Fascinating.

"There is an axiomatic expression that one should “praise in public, but correct in private,” but this is impossible because you’re anonymous"

What does one have to do with the other? Can't one be anonymous in public? I think that you were trying to say something aphoristic, but it didn't quite work.

"although I may know more than that, I would never expose that here out of respect for your decision to remain anonymous."

Not sure what you're saying here. And whether you should be saying things like that.

"refrain from excessive negativity, and in general, reduce the dick-like behavior."

I guess I have a different standard for what counts as excessive negativity. I realize that it is not pleasant to have one's work picked apart. One thing I find unpleasant is people offering intellectually feeble work, whose inanity is equalled only by its pomposity, for my and everyone else's consumption. Criticizing such work and holding it to the standard to which I expect to be held, by the way, a lot closer to the general theme of Jason's blog than whatever it is that you do.

"you’re of course vastly smarter than me... which is laughable and shows deep insecurity, etc. etc."

No, it is an indisputable fact. I address it only because I object to your self-serving amrchair psychologizing, not because I need to impress you. Given that people like Robert Steele seem to impress you, it isn't a prize worth striving for.

----

On that note, I would prefer it if we could stop this. If anyone has complaints about anything specific I said, as opposed to general and vague disapproval of my character, I'm happy to explain myself. Otherwise, I really couldn't care less if you think I'm "mean". No one is forcing you to respond to anything I say.

An Over-Educated Grunt

10/31/2014 10:09:44 am

On draft five of this; for perspective, the first post I put up, about finding your "the white Southerners" comment objectionable, got three, and my second got two. I'm neglecting Byron and whoever else has posted since I started writing this because they're irrelevant to what I'm trying to say.

They say you're supposed to begin any negotiation by stating the points you agree, and I've found it good advice, so - when you have points that amount to more than demonstrating to someone you've dismissed how superior you feel, I agree with you. I even agree with you on most of the people you've dismissed.

That said, I'm singularly unimpressed with your demonstrations of how superior you think you are, whether we're talking about JAD (and your white knight is a red herring, but he/she/it is not the subject here). Whether it's bringing up Gunn's windmill ideas every time he posted, or "shut up, ., no one cares what you think," or dismissing Byron's sources as intellectually worthless (equally true, I might add, of rightwingwatch.org)... these are examples drawn from memory, they're not me cherry-picking, they're not me forum-searching to support my argument. There's a list of times that you've been needlessly, superfluously rude, then claimed that most of your conversations are perfectly civil. That's probably true; it's equally true that most white southerners today would be very uncomfortable at black-faced characters, but "most" isn't what drove your analogy there, either. Do it once, it's understandable, do it twice, it starts to be suspicious, do it three times and it's a habit.

Look, in a lot of ways, this blog has a natural "us" and "them" readership. As I said up front, I generally agree with you, and it would be really easy to say "well, he's only taking it out on 'them,' why should I get involved?" You yourself have referred to what it takes for evil to triumph. This is the same thing. I could let it slide, but then, what happens to the day where *I* say something you think is crazy?

In summary, maybe my earlier post failed to express this clearly, but I just don't see anyone else on the generally sane side of the aisle saying this to you, and you won't pay attention to anyone from the other side. You've been needlessly, pointlessly harsh, to no visible purpose but to demonstrate your own apparent superiority, to anyone you decide doesn't meet your standards. In at least one case, I honestly believe your "shut up, no one cares what you think" actively set back what looked like an actual conversation. I'm unlikely to change your behavior, in your mind it's probably perfectly justified; all I can do is ask you to review the assumptions that underpin that behavior.

10/31/2014 10:45:47 am

What does my interaction with Gunn or JAD have to do with my alleged attempts to "demonstrate how superior I am"? Surely *there* I wasn't trying to do that! :)

"dismissing Byron's sources as intellectually worthless (equally true, I might add, of rightwingwatch.org)"

I agree that rightwingwatch.org is really poorly written and intellectually mediocre. I only provided those links for the sake of using the facts they are reporting as illustration. Not their analysis. I did not quote with approval inane ramblings of an Alex Jones guest. The difference is in the use to which sources are put.

"most of your conversations are perfectly civil. That's probably true; it's equally true that most white southerners today would be very uncomfortable at black-faced characters"

If you wish to allude to my caustic style to draw an analogy, be my guest. But what does this have to do with my blackface analogy? I was not making any claims about the specifics of the prevalence of racism in the South.

"but "most" isn't what drove your analogy there, either. Do it once, it's understandable, do it twice, it starts to be suspicious, do it three times and it's a habit."

I'm confused. Are you talking about me, or the attitudes and practices of some people in the South? Because I can't tell if you're saying that my analogy is appropriate after all, or that it retroactively makes my words in a completely different prior thread mean something else?

"I could let it slide, but then, what happens to the day where *I* say something you think is crazy?"

Then you can either discuss it with me like a civilized person or stubbornly dig in because God forbid someone points out you're wrong on an anonymous internet forum! I don't see what you're worried about.

Also, there is a guy below talking about how he doesn't care about offending the "7th-century feelings" of "Mohammedans". Why is your principled stand for civility not compelling you to speak up there?

"I just don't see anyone else on the generally sane side of the aisle saying this to you"

Gee, could it be that they aren't generally in agreement with you on this point? The only "sane" people (and I certainly count you among them) who have persistently raised this are those who

"and you won't pay attention to anyone from the other side."

Would you? Honestly, why would you even bring this up?

"You've been needlessly, pointlessly harsh, to no visible purpose but to demonstrate your own apparent superiority"

Clearly, my explicit, emphatic, repeated denials that I have such a purpose means nothing to you. Also, I cannot control which purposes are "visible" to you. I can only suggest you get your purpose vision examined.

"In at least one case, I honestly believe your "shut up, no one cares what you think" actively set back what looked like an actual conversation."

People say things that set conversations back all the times and for all kinds of reasons. I am not the only one.

"I'm unlikely to change your behavior, in your mind it's probably perfectly justified"

I have in the past apologized to people when my reactions were based on miscostrual of their comments. General whining about how "mean" I am because I made someone deservedly look silly doesn't qualify. Next time I say something silly, feel free to zing me. (Won't be the first time, I assure you.)

10/31/2014 10:52:42 am

There is an incomplete sentence (along with a couple of typos) in the above post. Normally I would complete it, but I have so little desire to continue this conversation that this time I won't.

Only Me

10/31/2014 11:40:45 am

@ Paul Cargile, Byron DeLear, An Over-Educated Grunt

Since I was the one EP's comment was directed toward, I wish to offer my perspective on that comment only.

I am a white Southerner, and I didn't find EP's blackface analogy offensive. I understand the point he was making. Whether it's the antics of Roberts and Ward on the sizzle reel (something Jason felt strongly enough to write about, at length), or someone portraying a blackface character, there will be members of the audience that will find such performances offensive.

It's unfortunate you found the analogy in poor taste. Unless he states otherwise, I'm fairly certain EP wasn't intentionally trying to offend. Just my take, for what it's worth.

10/31/2014 11:44:20 am

@ Only Me

*brofist*

Byron DeLear

10/31/2014 11:58:01 am

EP, of course you don't want to continue this discussion, because you're being called out by multiple people for repeat behaviors including the most important person on this site. Wake up. Stop being defensive is the suggestion --- maybe you could improve your tone? I dunno. It's an amazing concept.

For clarity, in our previous exchange, you had asked what do I mean by "open-source models" and I explained all the varieties of open source models in some length including open-source governance, open-source politics, etc. and I used an explanatory description provided in a blurb about Robert Steele's book (Open Source Manifesto) about said such models. I'll admit I neither have his book nor know anything about his promotional appearances like his being on Alex Jones --- I grabbed the language to assist in the explanation and only mentioned that this talks about some of these "concepts," viz. open-source models.

10/31/2014 12:18:38 pm

No, it has nothing to do with being "called out". Y'all are just making yourselves look foolish. Largely because your posture of outrage is unpersuasive. Viciously sexist, homophobic, and occasionally racist comments are made on this blog all too often, alongside schoolyard-tier name calling. Yet you say nothing. But when I used the word 'blackface' in a way that is plainly not prejudicial, it triggered your Pavlovian response, and you pounced.

I just don't see the point of continuing a conversation where the points I'm making aren't being addressed. You obviously are either incapable of or uninterested in being fair.

I'm assuming that by "the most important person on this site" you mean Jason. Leaving aside our private correspondence, to which you are not privy, I encourage you to point out one instance where he said what you're saying he said.

By the way, you're not even getting that book's title right. I suggest you spend more time checking facts. That, incidentally, would make you a lot less vulnerable to ridicule.

An Over-Educated Grunt

10/31/2014 12:45:22 pm

You're trying to dictate the engagement range without answering any of the things I've said about you, either. I've made the effort to be conciliatory and rewritten what was initially a very inflammatory post, trying to explain my point, and you've gotten your hackles up. I think that speaks for itself.

But there are a few things that need to be addressed.

1. How many people does it take to be offended? Since you've set yourself up to champion every minority in town whether they ask for it or not, do you think the civil rights movement would have been less worthwhile if the only people upset were Frederick Douglass and Martin Luther King? If you offend, and then hide behind "well, it's OBVIOUS that wasn't what I meant," then you're copping out. You might not have meant to offend, but you've never actually just said "whoops, sorry, didn't realize it bothered you."

2. You ask for concrete examples of where I think your behavior has been unacceptable. I've given them to you, and instead you just keep belittling Gunn and JAD. They aren't the subject here. Your response to them is. You say no one is bound to respond to you; equally, you're not bound to respond to them. Since you insist on doing so, that's a cheap excuse.

3. On the subject of Gunn and JAD, how we treat those we dislike and have no respect for says a lot more about us than how we treat those we like and respect. It's why we have rules about the treatment of prisoners. It's not for the guards' benefit, it's for the prisoners. You routinely act like anyone who isn't on your side is worthy of contempt. I've given you those examples, and your counter when you offend someone is "you don't have to respond," so why are you responding?

4. It's not about being mean. I've never said that you shouldn't be mean. I'd be the wrong person to say that. I strongly go back and suggest you review the argument I had with 666/KIF on the subject of Josephus, or any exchange between me and Phil Gotsch, if you believe I'm complaining about you being "mean." Mean has its place, and used appropriately it's a devastatingly effective tool. You're just way too quick on the draw with it. You want a very specific accusation, I'll tell you that, when JAD addresses someone who isn't named EP in the comments, in an apparent conversation, then you leaping in with "Shut up, no one cares what you think" isn't just mean, it's needless, stupid, and does nothing but make you look petty. Never mind JAD, behavior like that in my conversation makes it look like I'm associated with it, and if I don't respond... we're back to that "triumph of evil" thing.

5. One of us is trying to explain here, and has given repeated, specific examples, and the other is claiming there are no examples and no discussion. I claim offense, I've given my reasons; how you choose to address said offense and said reasons is completely up to you.

10/31/2014 01:18:09 pm

"without answering any of the things I've said about you"

Really? Seriously? I don't know... maybe you're just prone to hyperbole... Because, wow...

"I think that speaks for itself."

"you've set yourself up to champion every minority in town whether they ask for it or not"

I "champion" no one. I point out and confront bigotry and prejudice. I don't need your permission to do so.

"do you think the civil rights movement would have been less worthwhile if the only people upset were Frederick Douglass and Martin Luther King?"

Wait, did you just compare you or whoever being a special snowflake to the civil rights movement?

"If you offend, and then hide behind "well, it's OBVIOUS that wasn't what I meant," then you're copping out."

Not if I also insist that people are being unreasonable and explained why I think so.

"you just keep belittling Gunn and JAD. They aren't the subject here. Your response to them is."

I explained that I disagree with your evaluation of my behavior. For reasons stating which you consider "belittling" to people, one of which... I won't quote him again, lest he come back... My response to them is determined by what they are like. They are the subject to that extent. You should just admit they are bad examples for your argument.

"You say no one is bound to respond to you; equally, you're not bound to respond to them."

Your reasoning is fallacious. I am not bound, but neither am I precluded. I never said you can't respond to something.

"Since you insist on doing so, that's a cheap excuse."

It's not an excuse. I have no need to excuse myself. It is a reminder of an obviuos fact which your contining accusations show you need to be reminded of.

"On the subject of Gunn and JAD, how we treat those we dislike and have no respect for says a lot more about us than how we treat those we like and respect."

I am not asking you to treat them a certain way. You already expressed your disapproval of my approach. You don't really think moralistic commonplaces are going to convince me, do you?

"It's why we have rules about the treatment of prisoners. It's not for the guards' benefit, it's for the prisoners. You routinely act like anyone who isn't on your side is worthy of contempt."

Yes, yes. I'd get killed in prison. I've been told that before :)

"I've given you those examples, and your counter when you offend someone is "you don't have to respond," so why are you responding?"

I said that in response to something else. Try reading things more carefully. Also, again, you are fallaciously suggesting that something I said implies you or I or anyone is precluded from responding.

"Mean has its place, and used appropriately it's a devastatingly effective tool. You're just way too quick on the draw with it."

Ok, I could just as well say you're way too slow. Or I could suggest the sensible thing - that there is a spectrum of admissible approaches here and you have no basis to impose yours on me or anyone else.

"when JAD addresses someone who isn't named EP in the comments, in an apparent conversation, then you leaping in..."

What if the conversation concerns something that involves me directly?

"behavior like that in my conversation makes it look like I'm associated with it, and if I don't respond... "

Oh, so it's "your" conversation? LOL

Again, I never said you shouldn't respond.

"claiming there are no examples and no discussion."

I hope I've helped clear up this confusion.

Not the Comte de Saint Germain

10/31/2014 01:41:00 pm

I have to agree with Grunt (on his opinion of your behavior, not the "blackface" comment specifically). Part of the reason I find your behavior frustrating, EP, is that I respect you. I regard people who express racist sentiments here as lost causes; nothing I say can change their minds. You aren't an unreasonable person like they are. You're obviously knowledgeable about fringe ideas and their evolution. Knowledgeable comments like yours and Spookyparadigm's are, in my opinion, the most important reason Jason should keep comments sections on the blog. You can actually contribute to Jason's research!

But you can also be petty and snide. And regardless whether you think that behavior makes you look bad, it has had real consequences already. Gunn issued his legal threat against Jason partly because he blamed Jason for "allowing" your hectoring comments. Maybe Gunn would have done that even if you'd stuck to arguing with him based solely on evidence. But other commenters had argued the same issues before, yet it was obviously you that Gunn blamed.

I hate this kind of interpersonal conflict on forums, and I DON'T want to get into an extended argument with you. But can you at least consider toning down the snark a bit?

An Over-Educated Grunt

10/31/2014 02:21:28 pm

Welp, folks, it's been nice, but if this is "perfectly respectful," being called juvenile and a special snowflake by someone who doesn't recognize their own behavior is causing problems... Jason, I fold. Good luck with the blog, it's been mostly good and I'm sorry to leave right before a new season of AU. I'm sure it's going to be terrible.

And, since I'm sure there'll be inevitable comparisons to others who have announced their departures... I've never announced any of mine before. Leaves the door open to coming back. This is me closing a door.

10/31/2014 02:31:13 pm

@ NtCdSG

I'm sorry you feel this way. Let me just point out that

10/31/2014 02:46:45 pm

Sorry, pressed send button accidentlly.

@ NtCdSG (still)

...most of these conflicts arise outside of substantive discussions. Insofar as anything I say in these conversations annoys or offends "innocent bystanders" I genuinely regret that. But, even if you're right about everything, does that justify the details complaints and accusations directed at me which I've been responding to? If not, why am I the only one you're criticizing?

Also, I'm sure you're not suggesting that I am *responsible* for Gunn's behavior, but your words come closer to that than I would like. Just pointing that out. Not saying we have a conflict to resolve :)

@ Gunn

If true, I'm sorry you feel this way. But this kind of gesture only vindicates the comments you mention.

10/31/2014 02:51:07 pm

Grunt, I *will* apologize for accidentally referring to you as Grunt. I assure you it was unintentional and happened because I was thinking about what NtCdSG said.

10/31/2014 02:52:40 pm

I mean, for accidentally referring to you as Gunn. My God, my latest attempt to comment is beyond epic fail!

Shane Sullivan

10/31/2014 03:47:13 pm

Well, this is unwelcome news. Grunt, I've benefited from your insights, and we'll surely miss them.

(I really thought this was going to end in one of those "agree to disagree" moments.)

Byron DeLear

11/1/2014 03:02:35 am

Grunt, I hope you reconsider, maybe take a time out. Please know that many here share with you in your frustration. Like Not the Comte de Saint Germain, I've greatly appreciated your contributions and commentary here.

Matt Mc

11/3/2014 08:57:23 am

Grunt - I too hope you reconsider leaving. I have found that your comments add greatly to the discussions at hand.

Scotty Roberts link

11/21/2014 01:16:59 am

This little video is what is referred to as a "sizzle reel," for the purpose of showing studio/network execs how you function and interact on camera. Its a test reel that demonstrates on-air chemistry.

"Stroking egos?" Nothing of the sort. There is a formula that needs to be followed when creating a reel like this, and one of the lines of "interview" questions that needs to be filmed is:
1) Tell what you bring to the table;
2) Tell what you "love" about the other person;
3) Tell what you "hate" about the other person.

Its formulaic, but its what execs want to see.

As for being "goofs," who said that an academic cannot have fun with what they do? What John and I have always brought to the table is the idea that you can teach history and not have to be stogy. We don;t agree on everything, and part of the fun we bring to the table is our interchanges and tongue-in-cheek arguments. John is the academic, and I tend to thumb my nose at the need to be always academic. We have our good natured spats over things, and we were asked to this for that very reason.

And where did you glean any sort of information that says we are setting about to "right all incorrect perceptions?" That has never been part of what we intend to do.

What we HAVE said we will be doing is attempting to dig as deeply as possible to illuminate aspects of ancient mysterious sites that don't normally get talked about - make it interesting, for fuckssake.

The word "history" is generally frowned upon by television developmental marketeers. They have rating systems and pie charts and demographic information that says even the mention of the word "history" can glaze eyes. I think that was why we were approached to create a series - we work to make history fun, interesting and exiting. Which it is.

Oh, how ridiculous of us! We are two good friends who share a love of history and work to make it something exciting and interesting. Shame on us.

InquisitorX

11/21/2014 11:03:37 am

Be so kind as to share with us where both you and your partner have earned your academic degrees, since you refer to yourself and him as "academics".

This should be good for a laugh.

11/21/2014 11:29:27 am

"who said that an academic cannot have fun with what they do?"

(1) Nobody is saying it here. In fact, some of us are *real* academics, who come here in part to have fun.

(2) You two are not academics, so your comment is the reddest red herrring.

Shane Sullivan

10/30/2014 08:11:43 am

I admit, when I read the title, I assumed it was going to be about some kind of post-Castaneda Ayahuasca cult.

As for the biblical conservative audience, do you think it's possible for an audience to be so conservative that they just don't notice? You know, like Libarace in the 50s, where the idea was so foreign to the viewers that it just never occurred to them, even though effeminacy was already a trait associated with homosexuality.

10/30/2014 08:49:13 am

You mean before their world became saturated with the by-products of decades of campaigns of extreme homophobic fear- and hate-mongering, right? Because that's where we are today.

10/30/2014 09:12:46 am

This is just a sample from the last three days:

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/barbwire-runs-column-theonomist-who-backs-execution-gays

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/pat-robertson-warns-god-may-punish-houston-defending-militant-homosexuals

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/what-matt-barber-does-and-doesnt-find-appalling

This kind of stuff is why I have no patience for BillUSA's "Power Homosexuals" talk, by the way...

Only Me

10/30/2014 09:27:54 am

What...The...Fuck?!

I didn't even read the Pat Robertson link, the other two were more than enough. How do these people *sleep* at night? I don't even...

10/30/2014 09:38:58 am

...And this is why, as much as I feel the urge to laugh at everything in sight, the idea that these two doofuses are exploiting negative gay stereotypes is just not funny.

Just to drive home the point:

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/eugene-delgaudio-warns-gay-men-will-soon-be-skipping-down-adoption-centers-pick-out-little-b

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/fischer-gay-activists-are-nazis-and-mullahs-who-seek-impose-secular-sharia

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/louie-gohmert-gays-shouldn-t-serve-military-because-massages-will-make-them-vulnerable-terro

Only Me

10/30/2014 10:35:19 am

Not to carry the conversation too far off topic, you know what really gets me about all this? History (and present-day events in the Middle East) has recorded that Christians were once sought out and executed for BEING Christian. Now, two thousand years later, these self-proclaimed Christians are advocating the wholesale slaughter of a segment of society based on its sexual orientation. That these same people would likely call the Holocaust a human tragedy and an act of evil, without ANY sense of irony or hypocrisy, makes my blood boil.

Shane Sullivan

10/30/2014 01:00:26 pm

"You mean before their world became saturated with the by-products of decades of campaigns of extreme homophobic fear- and hate-mongering, right? Because that's where we are today."

I realize that. I'm asking if it's possible in modern times to be raised with so little regard of any kind for homosexuals as to be naive to, if not ignorant of, what the rest of us might see as telltale signs.

I mean, I know it's possible, since I've witnessed it; but as Jason points out, "TV doesn’t do subtlety, and emotions read broader on camera", so just because I've seen it in person doesn't mean a television audience would be sustainable. My gut says it wouldn't, but as someone might say, I ain't no big-city media communications major.

"This kind of stuff is why I have no patience for BillUSA's "Power Homosexuals" talk, by the way..."

Believe me, I get it; the only reason I never argued with him is that I know nothing I said would have change his mind.

Judith Bennett

10/30/2014 12:16:08 pm

Mr. Ward seems tremendously keen to make the point that he's both an academic and an archaeologist, so much so that one wonders if he doth protest too much. A cursory glance at his CV answers the question nicely: http://questforegyptianadventure.academia.edu/DrJohnWard/CurriculumVitae

There's no evidence that the man holds even an undergraduate degree in anthropology or archaeology, much less a doctorate.

HumanAtComputer

10/30/2014 07:40:26 pm

He lied on TV, and they let him do it, like they always do. His entire education consists of attending a technical college (but doesn't specify what), and earning a few certificates in scuba diving and emergency response.
http://eg.linkedin.com/pub/dr-john-ward/16/120/835

The other guy, too, is not a real historian.

Scotty Roberts link

11/21/2014 01:40:47 am

John Ward "lied on TV?" That's an interesting statement, mostly because he's never been on TV.

Neither of us has ever claimed to have an institutional degree. Why? Because we don't.

I have been an artist in advertising for the last 30+ years. I am an illustrator and designer, and I've held positions as Art Director and Creative Director in a handful of agencies over the last three decades.

I guess that means my illustration and art are all fraudulent, and I am a bogus artist.

Ward has lived and worked in Egypt as an archaeologist for 15 years. He openly states that it is his wife, Dr. Maria Nilsson, who is the chief archaeologist at their site of Gebel el Silsila, and that he works for her.

I guess his experience in identifying and cataloging symbolism is all fraudulent, then, and counts for nothing. Maria should fire his ass.

As for his doctorate, he has never made any bones about it having been conferred by a Knights Templar organization in appreciation for work he had done for them. But it really doesn't matter as he has never been obfuscatory about it. And everybody who knows us or follows us, also know these facts.

When people ask me about being an artist, I don't drone on about how I never actually got a degree in art. John does the work of an archaeologist, is sanctioned by the Egyptian government and Department of Antiquities to do so, and has spent more time at it than most of the people on this blog have spent away from their mothers' basements. That counts for something.

As for me, I only worked toward my unfinished Masters, with a focus on history (that's the easiest way to state it), but I have spent nearly 30 years researching and studying history. Am I an historian? Yup. Do I have a degree in it? Nope. And I have never obfuscated that fact.

I think the criticisms about our credentials is pretty banal stuff. John is an archaeologist and an historian. I am an historian. The sizzle reel didn’t need much more information than that. However, the 20-page written proposal that accompanied the sizzle reel spells a lot of that out.

11/21/2014 11:36:05 am

"John does the work of an archaeologist, is sanctioned by the Egyptian government and Department of Antiquities to do so, and has spent more time at it than most of the people on this blog have spent away from their mothers' basements."

Are you including Jason, spookyparadigm, NtCdSG, Aaron Adair, Mike Heiser, and myself? Because I'm pretty sure all of us spent most of our lives away from our respective mothers' basements...

But hey, I get it: "Hurr durr, skeptical Internet nerds, go back to your basements!" is easier than engaging substantive criticism...

Mark L

10/30/2014 09:32:20 pm

I just assumed they were dressed as Victorian explorers because that's the last time they paid attention to any news or science? "If your views are still stuck in the Victorian era, this is the show for you!"

10/31/2014 08:57:36 am

Are they really dressed as Victorians, incidentally? Looks to me more like 1940s-50s fashion, tbh.

Scotty Roberts link

11/19/2014 09:11:46 am

I WAS wearing blue jeans. Hardly Victorian. ;)

Scotty Roberts link

11/21/2014 01:48:45 am

See what happens when you make assumptions?

I think you should get yourself a little better informed before making as uninformed, banal and ridiculously vapid a statement as that.

I realize you were just getting on the band wagon of this blog, but to make an observation like that without knowing any facts is pretty silly.

By your statements above, I guess it is safe for me to assume that you never date girls, wear black "Shredder" tee-shirts and coke-bottle glasses, and live in a dark bedroom in your mother's basement, illuminated only by black lights shining on your "Teen Titans" posters.

Is my "assumption" correct...? ;)

Duke of URL

10/31/2014 03:41:45 am

>Only Me: "self-proclaimed Christians are advocating the wholesale slaughter of a segment of society based on its sexual orientation."
I feel a need to point out that the rabid anti-gays are a VERY small portion of Christians (Disclaimer: I am not Christian) and are condemned by the rest.
I have Christian friends of every variety (RC, LDS, Baptist, Episcopal, et cetera) and, although some of them disapprove of homosexuality, not a single Christian I know or have ever dealt with in my long life would tolerate physical attacks on gays. Indeed, I feel safe to say that every one of them would take preventive action (since some of them happen to own really large-caliber firearms, it would be effective action, too).
It's the Mohammedan World that slaughters gay men/women/boys/girls with glee.

10/31/2014 06:00:57 am

" It's the Mohammedan World that slaughters gay men/women/boys/girls with glee."

You realize the irony of you ending on this note, right?

Duke of URL

10/31/2014 07:58:53 am

How so? I was just pointing out that it's not the Christians killing gays, it's the Mohammedans.

10/31/2014 08:12:00 am

The irony is that you are making a claim that is not true of Muslims (or Islamic countries) in general, *while* reminding us (even though on one said anything incompatible) that not all Christians are alike in their attitudes. (Not to mention that the phrase "Mohammedan World" is archaic and likely to be offensive to many Muslims, both because of its theological implications and its etiology.)

Incidentally, while I wouldn't suggest that it applies to anyone you know, there are still many people (including government officials) whose continuing opposition to extending hate-crime protection to homosexuals is awovedly drounded in their interpretation of Christianity.

Only Me

10/31/2014 11:46:32 am

My apologies, Duke. I didn't intend for it to seem I was suggesting the individuals in question were important figureheads or representative of anything other than the most extreme fringe element of Christianity. I had thought the phrases "these people" and "self-proclaimed Christians" provided enough of a distinction.

Duke of URL

10/31/2014 08:29:07 am

(A) It is indeed true of Mohammedan countries in general - you can see this via Googling. I suggest: http://www.buzzfeed.com/saeedjones/76-countries-where-anti-gay-laws-are-as-bad-as-or-worse-than
(B) Calling Mohammedans "Mohammedans" hurts their 7th-century feelings? Awwww... Remind me to care about them while they wage their war on civilization world-wide.
(C) "continuing opposition to extending hate-crime protection to homosexuals" -- I'm opposed to the entire concept of "hate crimes". Given that there is no such thing as "love crimes" and given that there are already sufficient laws covering protection of ALL citizens, it's a dumb idea.
(D) "awovedly drounded"... WTF???

10/31/2014 08:55:11 am

You know Salman Rushdie is a Muslim, right? Would you describe his feelings as "7th-century"? How about Malcolm X?

I would never dispute that homosexuals suffer violations of their rights in many Islamic countries that go far beyond anything in any Western country. That, however, doesn't change the basic point I'm making. Muslims, just like Christians, vary in their attitudes to homosexuality. Missing sight of that is unfair to many Muslims who have been victims of homophobia at the hands of fellow Muslims, as well as those who fight for social justice (often at great risk to their own well-being).

It should be 'grounded', not 'drounded', of course. It's a typo.

*You* being opposed to hate-crime protection is irrelevant to whether many people's opposition to it stems from homophobia that is in turn grounded in their understanding of Chistianity.

Robert

11/19/2014 11:09:44 am

I find it interesting that for a person who professionally writes a blog, you don't even get the name correct when criticizing others. I believe he states that his name is "John Ward" in the video, not "Jack".

Did you eBen finish wathing the entire video???

InquisitorX

11/20/2014 01:29:57 am

Jack is often used as an alternative for people named John. It's English. I'm aware that English is difficult for the fans of such mindless sputum as that offered by Jack Ward and Scotty Roberts, so I thought I'd help you out.

Scotty Roberts link

11/21/2014 01:54:00 am

However, "Jack" is generally a nickname that is accompanied by lengthy association with the individual who goes by that moniker.

John Ward has never been called "Jack," nor has he ever used that form of his name in any setting at any time in his life. For it to be used specifically in this blog - when the author has referred to John Ward on other occasions, denotes the desire on his part to make reference in the diminutive.

C'mon, Inquisitor, we aren't ALL that socially inept nor incapable of gaging intent.

Jason Colavito link

11/21/2014 11:48:13 am

It doesn't denote a diminutive; it's just a typo because I had in mind another person of my acquaintance with a very similar name. I'll fix the name. Nice of you to jump to the worst conclusions without evidence while decrying me for what you claim to be the same.

11/21/2014 11:50:37 am

Jason, can I do extensive opposition research on this guy? ;)

Bakers Dozen

11/19/2014 02:46:56 pm

This is the most heavy handed homophobic article I've ever come across. The suggestions and intolerance sort of make me sick. All the other nit-picky BS over a show reel is petty at best, me thinks the author has a bit of a vendetta against the subjects in the video... OR a broken hearted man crush, hard to tell. That said? If he knew anything about the production world he'd be aware that television specs are formulaic, they require the subjects discuss their relationship so those who make decisions can determine their on screen chemistry... it's not just random.

Theatrics (ie. costuming) is also part of entertainment... sorry that's difficult to accept but it happens all the time on television, it's what makes it fun.

I'm not going to address the remainder of what you said as it's a waste of key clicks, but I now know one blog I'll never return to purely based on how horrible and snide you (and apparently some of your sheep) are. Who ever spends this much energy on an internet drive by of someone else's success has some personal issues to deal with. Grow up and do something positive because right now you'r not doing anything for your life but wasting it.

InquisitorX

11/20/2014 01:26:00 am

I see the fans of the fake archaeologist and the fake historian are running to their defence. Ward and Roberts are frauds. No amount of hyperbole will change that.

I have no doubt this program will be picked up by a network. Mindless entertainment appealing to the lowest common denominator always sells, and whatever those two frauds are involved in is going to be both mindless and appeal to the lowest common denominator.

Just an observation- those two are very clearly quite taken with themselves. That much is obvious.

Scotty Roberts link

11/20/2014 03:30:27 am

"Fraud" is a pretty heavy-handed charge, Inquisitor.

Scotty link

11/20/2014 03:33:12 am

And, of course, ANYONE who says anything contrary to Jason's ridiculously silly critique of a sizzle reel would have to be disqualified as a "fan."

Perhaps there are simply people who know better.

11/21/2014 12:19:46 pm

Near the beginning of this thread, I said that I disagree with Jason's opinion about your reel's supposedly colonialist overtones.

Yet, I'm sure no one here would mistake me for a fan of yours.

11/21/2014 11:40:18 am

"This is the most heavy handed homophobic article I've ever come across. The suggestions and intolerance sort of make me sick."

Dude! We are saying that portrayal of (largely negative) gay stereotypes is BAD. Because it helps perpetuate homophobic bias. You don't have to agree with us on this point, but it's hardly homophobic to make it.

11/21/2014 11:48:55 am

Also, your "LGBT Ally" posturing is poorly thought out. If this is even close to the most homophobic anything you've ever come across, then you are not qualified to opine on this issue.

DWP

11/21/2014 05:12:39 pm

Well said Bakers Dozen

Scott Roberts link

11/20/2014 03:35:34 am

I am also an artist, and have been an illustrator and designer, by trade, for the last 30+ years. But I do not have an institutional degree in "Art."

I guess I am now disqualified as a "fraudulent artist."

Scotty Roberts link

11/20/2014 03:37:36 am

Some of my fraudulent art can be seen, here:
http://www.scottalanroberts.com

InquisitorX

11/21/2014 10:59:19 am

Your artistic ability is a poor example. Artistic talent is something people can be born with. Archaeology isn't a talent people are born with. They attend university, study hard, write papers, give many hours free in the field, and earn their degree. They don't just declare themselves an archaeologist. It's as ignorant as just deciding one day to declare yourself a physician.

After looking around and seeing some of the other inconvenient truths about you and your partner I'm even more disgusted with your masquerade. Nazi symbols, racial Bible theories, fake doctorates, and Templar clubs. All the makings for snake oil telly.

Fraud is a deception deliberately practiced in order to secure unfair or unlawful gain (adjectival form fraudulent; to defraud is the verb).

I suggest that claiming to be an historian when you aren't, and claiming to be a doctor when you aren't, and claiming to be a doctor of something when you're not while writing books and attempting to secure a television program (both of which can be financially beneficial) while using those false claims and titles fits the definition of fraud.

11/21/2014 11:41:55 am

I take it you're nor "Father" Jack Ashcraft writing under a different name... :)

InquisitorX

11/21/2014 12:49:50 pm

Are you asking me? If so I'm not. I found this blog doing research on Scott Wolter this week. And my surname is Kirzner. I'm a tad too Jewish to be a priest. :P

11/21/2014 01:03:30 pm

Why were you doing research on Wolter, if you don't mind me asking?

Scotty Roberts link

11/21/2014 02:09:44 pm

I beg to differ. Talent may be born into someone, but being an "artist" is about using it or losing it.

The finest artists will tell you that its about 5% talent and 95% practice and development.

As for your Fraud diatribe, I have lived long enough to know not to get into an internet troll tit-for-tat. If you'd like to discuss this in detail, pick up the phone.

I take all calls. (651) 468-8115

InquisitorX

11/21/2014 02:18:03 pm

Of course a fraud would "beg to differ". It suits your chosen con game. I'll ask again- tell us where you and Ward earned your academic degrees since you claim academic standing.

Will we hear crickets again?

InquisitorX

11/21/2014 01:17:28 pm

I saw an episode of his show where he claims a giant menorah was built in Ohio. I find it absurd. So I started looking on the net and landed here.

a fan of Marcus Tullius Cicero

11/21/2014 01:40:57 pm

good answer. he should have tried for two or three tridents
like Neptune's being laid side by side. ;) the prongs... etc

Dear InquisitorX

11/21/2014 02:19:51 pm

on a gut level, on an intuitive level, you may be totally correct
about the shape of the mound in ohio. s.w could be wrong or
very creative and imaginative. we are guessing at this long
after it was built. we assume we are correct. to put neptune in
a context other than a planet and then go on about a design or
pattern is to give an old world context to a new world icon. i too
may be wrong. but MY idea comes at this from a different avenue.

sincerely yours,
DOT

REALTALK

11/21/2014 01:37:20 pm

I see a bunch of haters who havent done hit in their lives squabbling on what other people accomplished. Think you can do better, then close your keyboard, STFU and do so, otherwise your words mean crap.

11/22/2014 09:54:03 am

"close your keyboard" LOL

Scotty Roberts link

11/21/2014 01:57:36 pm

For all who made reference to the title…

"History Trippers" came in as a close second to "Two Blokes on an Ass," in which we had accompanying us in every episode, a young donkey that we would ride off atop, into the sunset, during closing credits.

The only problem was that one of the studio execs had an affinity for lamas, and we were informed that we couldn't use "Ass" in the title, as this particular exec would be offended.

So, we were forced to opt for History Trippers, which had an association with things such as "legend tripping," "day trippers," "road trippers," etc, etc, etc. The title denotes that one can have fun with history, and that it is not restricted to the stogy halls of academia.

As for Merriam-Webster:
trip·per, noun (ˈtri-pər)
a person who takes a short trip to visit an interesting place.

Shazam.

InquisitorX

11/21/2014 02:21:08 pm

Two Asses and a Donkey you say?

Scotty Roberts link

11/24/2014 04:18:51 am

Sometimes...

InquisitorX

11/21/2014 02:02:15 pm

Looks like Ward and Roberts' friends have come to their defence. Not a good showing though.

Scotty Roberts link

11/21/2014 02:21:46 pm

Inquisitor, I think you are operating the false assumption that we somehow need defending.

And "defense" is spelled with an 's.' You've done that twice, now. ;)

InquisitorX

11/21/2014 02:28:02 pm

The fraudulent academic is giving me spelling lessons? LOL

I think if you'll look you'll find that real English has the spelling as I used it. I'm not a Yank.

And yes, you need defending. Your con game is transparent except to the most crude of minds.

11/22/2014 04:41:45 am

I'm sure Hollywood is going to love your performance in this thread, Scotty. Keep it up!

InquisitorX

11/21/2014 02:19:57 pm

Oh I don't know. Maybe because the would be hosts are frauds? Neither is an archaeologist or historian. I'm willing to wager neither has a degree of any sort.

Scotty Roberts link

11/21/2014 02:34:12 pm

You obviously do not have the nads for reasoned discourse, so I'll end this from my end before you hurt yourself.

Have a good time.

11/21/2014 02:43:51 pm

Speaking of which, you haven't responded to any of my replies to your spastic attempts to imitate "reasoned discourse". Just sayin'.

InquisitorX

11/21/2014 02:38:53 pm

Funny how you run away without bothering to answer the important questions regarding your self claims. Namely, where did you and your cohort attend university and get your degrees such that you can claim academic standing, and to hold the self proclaimed titles you use?

You're the true coward. You snipe at little unimportant things and run off with your nose in the air in a fit of pseudo-martyrdom for the cause of faux history and faux titles.

You're a coward.

Scott Roberts link

11/22/2014 03:50:19 am

Funny how it only took you a few minutes to throw out the "run away" line. Impressive.
OU

InquisitorX

11/22/2014 04:23:49 am

And still no answers as to where you and your cohort received your degrees such that you can claim to be academics, historians and archaeologists.

In fact, do either of you have a degree in anything at all? I wager the answer is a no.

DWP

11/21/2014 04:56:50 pm

Wow you really seem to have some repressed homophobic issues.

As for Ward and Roberts I actually know both of them, the friendship and brotherly connection between them is completely genuine.

The victorian Drawing room set you refer to is in fact Roberts living room. The set dressing is in fact just the everyday decorations of his home. You may not care for historical items and such, but Scotty does. Though not all is historical, you may not have noticed the collection of Star Trek phasers. Which were mounted next to rapiers, daggers, and other swords, just a normal whimsical Roberts touch.

As for the way they dress...this is infact their everyday look. Scotty has always had a sense of a classical look to his wardrobe. The Fedora and tweed, the vest the scarf just his thing.

As for John he too is just dressed as he normally dresses. The cravat, Hat and all including his trusty umbrella just part of his look.

I can only guess by looking at the photo you have posted you go for the office max employee look. That's cool I guess if you are into that sort of thing. Maybe it makes you look as though you know something about electronics or binders and such? Or am I making assumptions of your personality by the choices you made when dressing that day?

Another thing, Scotty has written more than just about Nephilim His most recent book about the Exodus with Dr. Ward is Excellent. His childrens book based on stories he used to tell his children at night is a wonderful tale.

Perhaps rather than using this blog to cut apart people that are attempting to expose people to new ideas, Maybe you should try to give a straightforward critique based upon the actual merits of a project. Rather than ripping on imagined homoerotic fantasies that exist in your mind. Or creating Colonial overtones that do not exist.

What I saw in the Sizzle Reel was their actual personalities coming through, mixed with a fair amount of their brand of humor. As far as I'm concerned with all the crap that Hollywood turns out I would be happy to see these two get a show. And if it's not your cup of tea you can turn the channel.

a citizen of the universe

11/23/2014 09:10:20 pm

I definitely most totally to a 100 percentile agree with this!

"What I saw in the Sizzle Reel was their actual personalities coming through, mixed with a fair amount of their brand of humor. As far as I'm concerned with all the crap that Hollywood turns out I would be happy to see these two get a show. And if it's not your cup of tea you can turn the channel."

Scotty Roberts link

11/22/2014 03:59:59 am

EP SIAD:
"Speaking of which, you haven't responded to any of my replies to your spastic attempts to imitate "reasoned discourse". Just sayin'."

Sorry, EP, I didn't see anything from you that I felt needed to be responded to. If you believe that "reasoned discourse" is the tone of what you do, here, then I must have been raised incorrectly.

As for not responding: “Spastic attempts?” Its statements like those that draw people in and make them want to discuss things. Right? Did your mama not raise you right? Seriously.

11/22/2014 04:40:41 am

"I must have been raised incorrectly"

I don't think you'll find much opposition to this suggestion here.

And you did respond after all, so I guess it works! :D

Scotty Roberts link

11/22/2014 05:16:39 am

Hahaha! Thanks for that response. I appreciate your humor.

Seriously, I'll do my best to answer anything you think is important to know. But I'll be out for most of the rest of the day.

Cheers.

11/22/2014 07:05:55 am

Hahahaha! You're hilarious! No wonder Hollywood is eager to get into the Scotty Roberts business!

How about responding to any of the things I said above? You know, things you first said didn't require a response...

InquisitorX

11/22/2014 04:22:20 am

Scotty Roberts link

11/22/2014 05:11:38 am

InquisitorX,
You ask questions to which the answers have never been obfuscated nor hidden. The details of my life, my career, my businesses, my academic standing, my education and credentials have never been secret. I have spoken about them openly in books, magazines, radio programs, social networks and public engagements, for probably longer than you have been breathing.

I did’t fall off the turnip truck just yesterday.

For you to ask me to answer your questions, here, in the insulting fashion that you pose them, laced with barbs, insults and belittlements is nothing I haven’t seen nor encountered before. And my “running away” (as you put it) is nothing more than me saying that it is a waste of time to answer your caterwauling.

You speak of “cowardice, fraud and con artistry,” easy epithets to throw out when you operate under the anonymity of a fake name, and more than likely hurled from the relative sanctity of your mother’s basement - well, at least that’s where most internet trolls who hide behind their anonymity, in order to act poorly, dwell. If nothing else, its a great stereotype.

For me, the Coward, to come in here with my real name, offering you my phone number - not to hide anything, but to give you the opportunity to butch-the-fuck-up - is a far cry from how you present yourself. Its easy to lob insult from the relative safe zone of the bushes.

And it might even be said that the conversation between you and I would take on a completely different tone were we sitting face-to-face, having a pint, discussing your blow hardiness over my and Ward’s credentials - again, things never hidden nor obfuscated. And were you, in that setting, to hurl the brand of insult you deliver form your anonymity, here, I think you would be able to find very quickly whether or not I was coward.

What I find most interesting is that people who have the ability to deliver anonymous insult probably do so because they, themselves, are cowards.

I’ll make you a deal, right here and now… post your real name, your credentials, your phone number and social networking contacts (as I have done), and I’ll regale you with all the things - that are already public knowledge - that you’d like to know.

As for now, you’ve drawn me back in to wasting my time on someone who does’t deserve it. If you want to interpret that as me “running away,” feel free.

You’re just another internet turd. And until you man-up and learn how to discourse decently (Yeah, EP, “decent discourse”), you’re a waste of time.

11/22/2014 07:13:13 am

"your mother's basement"

You can almost feel the sting! I'm literally crying. All of our lives have been a wase!

"You’re just another internet turd"

Oh, God! Stop! Your wit is too scathing! I cannot bear the emotional pain!

By the way, Scotty, I realize you're making an effort, but you really need to have someone read over your comments before you post them. Your grammar is nowhere near the level you need to attain before you can pass as an academic without making people laugh.

InquisitorX

11/22/2014 11:59:55 am

And don't forget the explicit penis waving of "And were you, in that setting, to hurl the brand of insult you deliver form your anonymity, here, I think you would be able to find very quickly whether or not I was coward."

Threats of violence. How academic. ha ha

And do note that his pissing in the wind is all designed to avoid answering the questions put to him because he knows the answers undermine his claims.

11/22/2014 01:31:21 pm

The sizzle reel certainly makes such threats sound hollow :)

Scotty Roberts link

11/22/2014 02:39:23 pm

Are you saying that an academic doesn't have the ability to punch a guy in the face for being a shit? Hahaha. And if you think I was issuing some sort of threat, you missed the point entirely.

"Pissing in the wind?" Call it what you like, and whatever makes you feel snug and warm in mom's basement amongst your black lighted posters.

There is no avoidance here, just merely thumbing my nose at your style of questioning - if you hadn't figured that one out, yet.

11/22/2014 03:18:46 pm

You are not an academic, so the question doesn't arise.

That "mom's basement" comment gets funnier every time you make it.

I guess you decided that no publicity is bad publicity. That's the only explanation I have for your comments in this thread.

Scotty Roberts link

11/22/2014 02:41:05 pm

Even more hollow in the light of there not being any "threats."z

I am sure you must have caught the nuance, EP... I was making the point that were we face-to-face, he probably would have the balls to be a turd. ;)

Scotty Roberts link

11/22/2014 02:42:26 pm

Sorry... typo correction time...

"I was making the point that were we face-to-face, he probably would NOT have the balls to be a turd. ;)"

InquisitorX

11/22/2014 02:44:29 pm

An academic might, but as you're not an academic, but a simple fraud who thinks claiming to be something makes it fact your threat of violence is laughable.

You do have a fixation with basements and mum, don't you? Is that where you and your cohort got the idea that you can pretend to be anything and it becomes real? Too much Dungeons and Dragons, innit? ha ha

Bloody hell you're entertaining in your attempts at seeming "academic".

Scotty Roberts link

11/22/2014 02:52:41 pm

So, how about my offer, inquisitor?

Scotty Roberts link

11/22/2014 02:51:02 pm

EP,
"Your Mother's basement" and "You're just another turd" are not grammatically incorrect. ;)

But let's move on. You obviously major on minor points, here. And that is why you don't get much quality response from those you attempt to degrade.

I don;t walk away because I can't handle the back-and-forth, its because it wastes my time. You are not about getting information and opening dialog, you are about criticizing. Period.

I didn't run this one by a grammar coach, but I think its solid.

InquisitorX... what about the deal I offered you? Haven't seen a response from you on that one...

11/22/2014 03:16:40 pm

Schoolyard insults are the one place where your illiteracy doesn't come through, then? Good job directing attention to that fact!

You still haven't addressed any of the points I made above in the thread. After saying you would. After saying they are not worth addressing. Make up your mind.

InquisitorX

11/22/2014 03:24:12 pm

Deal making to simply tell the truth about yourself? Sounds par for the course for frauds. Always looking for an angle.

Bottom line: You and your cohort have no university educational degrees, otherwise you would be happy to tout them.

As I said, you pretend and think its real.

That's called delusional.

DWP

11/22/2014 06:31:55 pm

@ InquisitorX,

"Bottom line: You and your cohort have no university educational degrees, otherwise you would be happy to tout them."

I'm just curious dose this apply to all professions? I know writers and poets that do not have degrees in literature and yet they are published so does this make them frauds to cal themselves writers because they do not have degrees? I know actors and Directors without degrees. Are they frauds for calling themselves Actors and Directors? I know politicians that do not have Political science degrees and yet they are accepted in their fields. In fact unless you want to make your life in a specific field teaching at a collegiate level there are very few fields that require degrees. Outside of medicine and lawyers and such. Hell I know professionals that teach based on experience not academic credentials.

The definition for Archaeologist: I see no Fraud in this.

archaeologist
Use archaeologist in a sentence

noun

The definition of an archaeologist is a person who studies human history, particularly the culture of historic and prehistoric people, through discovery and exploration of remains, structures and writings.

An example of an archaeologist is Kathleen Kenyon.

Your Dictionary definition and usage example. Copyright © 2014 by LoveToKnow Corp

archaeologist
Noun
(plural archaeologists)

Someone who is skilled, professes or practices archaeology.

As I see it Dr. John Ward makes his living actually doing Archaeology in Luxor Egypt, So if he wants to call himself an archaeologist he is entitled. How many digs have you worked on?

If Scotty Roberts wants to call himself an historian. And I know him to be one having spent years doing historical interpretation as a living historian. As well as countless hours researching various historical periods, battles, events, objects and such along side me and other historians I see no reason he should not. What are you credentials to say otherwise?

The definition of Historian: I see no fraud in this.

his·to·ri·an noun \hi-ˈstȯr-ē-ən, -ˈstär-\
: a person who studies or writes about history

Full Definition of HISTORIAN

1
: a student or writer of history; especially : one who produces a scholarly synthesis
2
: a writer or compiler of a chronicle

I just don't see what their academic background has to do with what they do for a living or why you should care so much. Are you jealous that they have become known and you have not? Are you mad at them because they did you some wrong? Or is your life so empty that you must tear other people down in order to somehow validate your existence? Really it seems all rather petty.

Scotty Roberts link

11/22/2014 10:38:30 pm

So, let's see... you lead off by calling me a fraud, a coward and a con artist, followed by calling me pretentious and delusional. Then you chide me for not answering your questions.

I told you I’d be happy to answer your questions if, in return, you provided me with your name, rather than your pseudonym. Your response to that was to continue throwing out insults.

Bottom Line:
Why am i obliged to offer you reply on anything, when it was you who launched the first salvo? If you haven't figured it out by now, I have nothing to hide - especially from you. If your big enough to cast insult and make judgment, you ought to be big enough to tell me your name before asking me to accommodate your questions. So, in the meantime, I am simply enjoying fuckin' with you. The "deal making" isn't about "telling the truth," its about any further dialog between you and me.

On top of all that, I'll once again state that the answers to the questions you ask have already been public knowledge for three decades.

Despite all of that, I'll throw you a little bone... in the 30 years since my last year in seminary, I have never claimed to have a university degree. Anyone who knows me could verify that fact.

Only Me

11/22/2014 06:19:18 pm

Mr. Roberts, the reason credentials are important is because a precedent has been set that has mislead the audience of a few cable programs.

We've had fraudulent claims to a PhD, a descendent of Jesus, a "maverick archaeologist" without a degree of any kind (because he's a self-published author) and a geologist that falsely listed an honorary master's degree he was never awarded on his resumé for 25 years.

None of the above is your fault, but it has made many of us look closer at credentials individuals claim. You said Mr. Ward "has lived and worked in Egypt as an archaeologist for 15 years", then you say "John does the work of an archaeologist, is sanctioned by the Egyptian government and Department of Antiquities to do so". By your logic, the work force and any volunteers doing the actual excavating, cataloging, etc., have a legitimate right to call themselves archaeologists, too. You tell us "I have spent nearly 30 years researching and studying history". That's fantastic, but, at best, that makes you a researcher, an enthusiast or a student of history. By your logic, again, I can call myself a paleontologist because I've researched and studied dinosaurs nearly my entire life.

I'm not saying either of you don't know what you're doing, but, it isn't a personal attack or affront to state the irrefutable fact you're not a historian and he's not an archaeologist. That is the purpose of attaining degrees; it proves you've earned the right to call yourselves thus.

InquisitorX

11/23/2014 01:52:21 am

Exactly.

Scotty Roberts link

11/23/2014 04:15:41 am

Well said, Only Me. And I appreciate what you have to say and how you said it.

And you have hit the nail on the head regarding "personal affront. and attack." There is a huge difference between stating a position in the way you have, versus lacing it with targeted insult and caterwauls of "fraud, deceit, con artistry, cowardice, delusion and pretense."

While one does not need to have an institutional degree to participate in a plethora of fields of endeavor, they also had better be able to meet the rigorous standards set by that particular industry or field.

For the first few years of my career as an advertising creative, I did not possess the requisite degree that most companies were looking for. But after a few breaks I began building the necessary experience that outweighed my need for a degree in that field.

In this setting - the skeptical blogosphere - the standards have been set to "rigid." And there's nothing wrong with that. But many in this setting have, under the banner of that rigidity, devolved journalism to criticism, communication to unsolicited attack, and civility to that which can “be gotten away with” under the veil of anonymity.

I call myself an explorer, researcher and historian. I also claim a many-faceted career as writer, artist, illustrator, publisher, public speaker, radio host, photographer, all of which have put food on my table, paid the electric bill and put a roof over my children’s heads. Never have I stated that I possess an institutional degree. I have, however, in many instances over the last 30 years written and spoken regarding my lack of an institutional degree.

For the record, I have a high school diploma. I spent three years in a Bible college before dropping out (I was nearly expelled for kissing my girlfriend under their very rigid social system). The following year, I was invited to start my Masters program in a small theological seminary. I was told that I would be privately tutored in the remaining 22 credits toward my Bachelor’s degree, while earning my Mdiv. I spent two years in seminary, struggling financially before I left to take a position as an art director at an ad shop in a different state, thus launching my 30-year career in advertising. So, my illustrious institutional education consists of a high school diploma, three years in college toward my Bachelors, and two years work toward my Masters, in which I lack credits in Hebrew, systematic theology and a few other incomplete courses. I never wrote my Masters thesis.

My lack of an institutional degree, however, has never precluded me from being an historian by definition. It does, however, make me an “amateur” by some critics’ standards. But even the word “amateur” is an inappropriate descriptor, in that the word seems only to make the “earning of money” the standard by which one is an amateur or professional…

am·a·teur
ˈamədər,ˈaməˌtər,ˈaməCHər/

NOUN:
1) a person who engages in a pursuit, especially a sport, on an unpaid basis.

ADJECTIVE:
1) engaging or engaged in without payment; nonprofessional; “an amateur archaeologist" (I found it interesting that they used “archaeologist” as an example)

I’ve made a bit of a living at being an historian. Nothing to shake a stick at, but it all helps keep the lights on.

So, I would ask someone like InquisitorX who engages in personal affront and attack as his mode of communication, how does any of the above qualify me as fraudulent, a con artist, delusional, cowardly or somehow obfuscating my credentials?

Only Me, I do, and always have understood the need for transparency and honesty, and I certainly understand it in the context of this blog and the people who visit it.

Hope that helps a bit.

Only Me

11/23/2014 07:31:18 am

Thank you for the reply, Mr. Roberts.

I admit my impression of your sizzle reel was unfavorable. I didn't know there was a formula that was expected to be followed. After Byron explained sometimes the person/persons involved with making them will portray themselves as characters, my impression further soured. I thought you and John were doing just that, becoming characters and hamming it up for the camera.

With Giorgio Tsoukalos cashing in on his flamboyant popularity, Scott Wolter telling the viewer he'll expose the "hidden truth" of history and the "brothers on a quest" theme of /Curse of Oak Island/ and /Search for the Lost Giants/, I had the feeling you and John might have been trying to take elements from all of them. DWP, who claims to know you personally, says this isn't the case; if that's true, I admit I jumped to conclusions.

I suppose the glut of cryptozoological-, paranormal- and conspiracy-themed programming has curtailed my enthusiasm for anything new.

InquisitorX

11/23/2014 12:57:25 pm

So basically it comes down to you think you deserve the title historian and academic, so you use them.

As I sad...too much Dungeons and Dragons.

You can pretend to be whatever you want to, but at the end of the day you're just an artist who wants to be more than he really is.

Scotty Roberts link

12/4/2014 12:57:40 am

InquisitorX said:
"You can pretend to be whatever you want to, but at the end of the day you're just an artist who wants to be more than he really is."

Well, no. That is an armchair perspective on your part. You allow your personal desire to override your common sense.

I'm actually an artist who has put three decades of study into a field for which I do not have an institutional degree. That gives me a little more clout than "hopeful wishing." Probably closer to a "common law" sort of thing.

Dungeons and Dragons? I think I played that a couple of times back in the 1990s.

11/23/2014 04:49:42 am

Only Me, are you an Internet turd? :)

InquisitorX

11/23/2014 01:02:15 pm

Only Me- You should have a look at some of the other articles on this site on Roberts and Ward.

Just as teasers...

Nazi symbols, racial Bible theories, Nephilim, UFOs, Reptilians and Templars.

They're not at all far removed from Scott Wolter or Ancient Aliens.

11/23/2014 02:24:23 pm

They are worse, actually.

I believe Jason has discussed their work in the past.

Scotty Roberts link

11/24/2014 04:42:28 am

Of course, InquisitorX, all the articles on THIS site are from a singular perspective, with a small handful of people who follow and comment in lockstep. On some the points you mentioned as “teasers”…

1) Jason, of course, was incorrect about the significance of John Ward’s usage of the Nazi symbols - which are all much, much older than the 20th century.

2) Jason was also incorrect in his appraisal of what he referred to as my "racism," as he critiqued my review of the movie, "Noah."

3) I wrote a book about the *mythologies* of the Nephilim, and how the Hebrew account mirrored many other cultural accounts of similar creatures.

4) My book on the Reptilians focused on the psychology of WHY people need mythologies like these in their lives, and I laid out the Anunnaki accounts as found in the Sumerian/Mesopotamian cuneiform tablets, and provided pretty solid evidence as to why they had nothing to do with "ancient aliens."

5) I have never researched nor written anything about Ufology nor Templarism.

I would say that we are closer to a Scott Wolter than the show "Ancient Aliens." I did sit for an hour-and-a-half interview with prometheus Productions, when they attended the Paradigm Symposium 2012, and I appeared in a few episodes of "Ancient Aliens" in their fifth season, the following year. They asked me 40-some questions revolving around the topics of both the Nephilim and Reptilians. I would have to say that my contributions leaned far to the NON-alien point-of-view.

Both John and I subsequently turned down Prometheus Productions, when they asked us to come on the show the following year, mostly because - as we told them - we really do NOT subscribe to the "ancient alien" notion.

So, you see, restricting your understanding of who Ward and I are, to the reading this blog, you end up with very limited information, presented from a singular point-of-view that is laced with inaccuracies.

InquisitorX

11/24/2014 05:56:39 am

"Jason, of course, was incorrect about the significance of John Ward’s usage of the Nazi symbols - which are all much, much older than the 20th century."

Sorry mate, but those symbols are Nazi symbols. Your cohort used them in the exact sequence and even with the artwork between them found on the Nazi ring. You can try that propaganda with the mindless ones who follow you, but facts are facts. Funny too when I did an internet search on Ward I found his Academia.edu profile, and guess what one of his interests is? Answer: Esoteric Nazism.

2) Jason was also incorrect in his appraisal of what he referred to as my "racism," as he critiqued my review of the movie, "Noah."

"I wrote a book about the *mythologies* of the Nephilim, and how the Hebrew account mirrored many other cultural accounts of similar creatures."

Just a simply internet search brings up a plethora of internet radio shows where you discuss UFOs and Nephilim as fact. I'd say that places you in the nutter category.

"My book on the Reptilians focused on the psychology of WHY people need mythologies like these in their lives, and I laid out the Anunnaki accounts as found in the Sumerian/Mesopotamian cuneiform tablets, and provided pretty solid evidence as to why they had nothing to do with "ancient aliens.""

Let me guess. You used Sitchen's material. ha ha

"I have never researched nor written anything about Ufology nor Templarism."

We're specifically talking about you and your cohort here. He certainly is neck deep in Templar silliness. After all that is where he got his doctorate. ha ha ha ha

You two are good for a laugh if nothing else. At least Wolter, as daft as he is actually has a degree.

InquisitorX

11/24/2014 05:59:28 am

Forgot to mention that your take on Noah is racism. The direct connections to the racist Christian Identity movement are so bloody obvious even an amateur like you can see that. That is, if you're honest.

Scotty Roberts link

11/24/2014 09:44:55 am

InquisitorX Said:
"Forgot to mention that your take on Noah is racism."

ME:
Whew... good thing I reminded you about a missed opportunity to cast more dispersion.

IN YOUR OWN WORDS, please describe how my review of the movie "Noah" has ANYthing to do with the Christian Identity Movement. And from what YOU, PERSONALLY know about my position on Racism, C.I. and Noah (outside the singular source of this blog and its two or three follower-contributors), tell me the position to which I adhere and which you say I promote.

And while you are at it, since you know so much about me, please detail how the body of my work promotes the stance you suggest.

I'll bet you can't.

If you weren't such an uninformed bystander, anonymously parroting other people's editorial opinions, you might be relevant.

InquisitorX

11/24/2014 11:03:45 am

Scotty Roberts wrote: "This has been grossly misinterpreted in English to mean that Noah was a “good, righteous man.” In fact, in the Hebrew language of the Book of Genesis, “righteous” meant “pure blooded.” In actuality, when you examine the linguistics of the Genesis text, it clearly states that Noah was a man who was “pure blooded in all his generations,” meaning that his family line was “of pure human blood,” as opposed to the mixed blood of the rest of the population of the known world at that time."

Kinsman Redeemer website (a Christian Identity group) writes on the same topic: "Up to the time of Noah, he and his family were the only racially pure Adamites in the world."

http://kinsmanredeemer.com/no-fault-birthing-weapons-mass-diversity

In the following article written by Scotty Roberts http://intrepidmag.com/cain-and-the-other-people/#more-264

he makes reference to a "kinsman redeemer" and Jesus being of "pure blood", exactly as they do in the Christian Identity movement. (see previously posted link to the Kinsman Redeemer site) Also in that article he discusses his theory that Eve had sex with the serpent producing Cain, an evil seed. This is exactly the same as the Christian Identity Movement, as readers can see here: "Serpent’s Seed Doctrine: Most Identity believers hold that Cain was the offspring of Eve and Satan (represented by the serpent). According to this “two seed lines” doctrine, as it is also known, Cain and his descendants intermarried with the pre-Adamites, resulting in a “mongrel” race now known as the Jews." (http://www.watchman.org/profiles/pdf/christianidentityprofile.pdf)

As a Jew I know what this kind of thought has done to my own family. You're no better than a Nazi Scotty Roberts. This writing of yours coupled with your close associate Ward's fancying Esoteric Nazism, and the Nazi symbols that graced his logo all lead to the conclusion Scotty Roberts and John Ward are either racists, or you're using racist material to develop your sensational theories on just to get attention.

"History Trippers"....you two are "tripping" alright.

Scotty Roberts link

11/23/2014 04:16:16 am

Yeah... what he said...

11/23/2014 04:50:22 am

Gotta promote dem webistes...

Scotty Roberts link

11/23/2014 04:53:12 am

Indeed. ;)

But you gotta admit, "turd" can be a powerful word.

11/23/2014 09:34:20 am

If you're four years old...

Scotty Roberts link

11/23/2014 10:27:16 am

...or... if you prefer using it to going much more foul in a public forum that doesn't belong to you. ;)

11/23/2014 02:25:47 pm

Your personality comes through in your comments sufficiently clearly. No need to spell it out.

DWP

11/23/2014 11:17:39 am

@ Only Me,

Let's be clear here I never said that Scotty and John were not characters, for they most definitely are. I just said they were not pretending to be characters. They actually are just that "Off" in real life. But you will never meet two more generous and caring men who still believe in honor. They not only wear the clothing of an age gone by but still believe in its principles. The world today is full of cynicism you can't believe what is seen in text or image. But I tell you this, there are those out there for whom what they say and do is real. I know Scotty and John to be two such men.

And also keep in mind you are holding TV personalities responsible for the words of writers paid to produce scripts at the direction of Producers. Even "Reality TV" has writers, follows formulas and is subject to network whims. I happen to also know Scott Wolter and find him to be an attentive scientist that seeks to use science to prove his theories. I may not agree with all of those theories. However I have seen and agree with him; that modern academia does all it can to brush away and hide anything that counters what it believes is fact.

Even in the finding of the "Ice Man" When his belongings flew in the face of what had been taught of mans historical timeline. The first responses were quick to suggest fakery of misdating or any other alternative rather than to except they had been wrong. To me being wrong is all part of science, we acknowledge theory and then look to prove or disprove it. We should always be open to new ideas and theories or we cease to grow as a culture. We can not possibly know all that is to be known. We can only know all that is known to date. With every new dig on any ancient site we could uncover things that will change what we believed. This used to be called progress now we bury our heads in the sand and pretend to not see what lies before us. I fear our grand children will look back on us as we look at those of the last century who where quoted as such.

"If man were meant to fly he'd have been born with wings."

"Man cannot travel a speeds over 15 mph the force of such would kill him."

There are quotes like this for every great move forward. Look at Pasture, Curie, Tesla and countless others.

Maybe is we shined a light on new ideas thoroughly examined them then we could with confidence embrace those that were sound and toss aside those that were not. Ridiculing those that present new ideas is the worst form of backwards science I know of. Modern Academia has become the vatican of old. Really is that what you want to be part of?

11/23/2014 02:27:30 pm

"Ridiculing those that present new ideas is the worst form of backwards science I know of."

Sounds like DWP here knows a lot about science. We should listen to him, probably.

"Tesla"

LOL

Scotty Roberts link

11/24/2014 04:16:20 am

EP, are you suggesting that Science cannot be understood by DWP? Or that he is incorrect when he states that "new ideas" have always been the progenitors of advancing Science?

I can;t tell if you are being light-hearted in your response to him, or if you think he is incorrect.

I understand that you and the couple of others who post here, have had issues with people that you deem as being unqualified to think beyond the boundaries, but is it your goal to find out what people think, or to offer ridicule offhandedly?

It seems as if slight and belittlement comes easy, here, rather than sincere questioning.

There are "Big 'S' Skeptics," and Little 's' Skeptics":
- BIG S - denialists of anything beyond the currently quantifiable;
- Little s - skeptical, but open to possibilities and eager to find answers.

Where do you fall? Slamming anyone and everything that is outside the box you think they ought to be in, or open to the possibilities?

I'll ask you directly: do you believe there are "veils" we cannot pierce?

“People are not stupid. They believe things for reasons. The last way for skeptics to get the attention of bright, curious, intelligent people is to belittle or condescend or to show arrogance toward their beliefs.” ~ Carl Sagan

11/25/2014 01:08:00 pm

I'm sorry, you're using too many words in ways that don't coincide with standard usage. I know a real-deal, serious, totally-not-made-up "academic" such as yourself couldn't possibly fail to know what they mean, but it doesn't change the fact that I find it hard to follow you and don't want to guess what you mean. As for what I am suggesting, it is neither more nor less than what I said. Putting words in people's mouths only makes things easier if they don't call you on it.

Scotty Roberts link

11/26/2014 01:03:42 pm

You are right about that, EP.

Well, some of it.

Scotty Roberts link

11/24/2014 11:18:51 am

Well, InquisitorX, if you think we're simply "nutters," why are you wasting your time? Just send our family flowers and condolences and move along.

If you have listened to my radio shows regarding Nephilim and Reptilians, I am sure you also heard me refer, many times, to all of it as "mythology." Oh, but then again, you didn't actually LISTEN, you simply Googled a list of shows on which I appeared as a guest. Had you listened, you might have been informed.

Do you even know what "Esoteric Naziism" is? And can a researcher be interested in the topic without adhering to its mandates or principles? How well do you know John Ward, and how intimately have you studied his work? I happen to know John Ward, and he's no Nazi.

I have never, not even once, discussed UFOs. Its not my topic. People ask me what I think about them, and I give an opinion, but refer them to people who know more on the topic.

As for Zechariah Sitchin, I have written about him. I take his scholarship to task in two of my books. His linguistics were off, and his interpretations were faulty. And if you knew anything about Sitchin's work, you could certainly never connect his theories to me. Conversely, if you knew anything about MY work, you couldn't make the connection to Sitchin, other than to see how deeply I disregard his work.

Step out into the light, give us your real name, stop hiding behind anonymity, and let's see what YOU are all about. So far, you are simply another internet parrot hiding behind your anonymity for the purpose of acting poorly.

Prove me wrong.

Scotty Roberts link

11/24/2014 11:20:19 am

Hold the presses! I amended my last post, but it didn;t paste. Here is the final version...

* * *

Well, InquisitorX, if you think we're simply "nutters," why are you wasting your time? Just send our family flowers and condolences and move along. OH, but wait! You are a self-appointed watchdog, warning the world of our fraud and deceit and cowardice! You are the anonymous voice crying in the wilderness, who does not have the power of conviction to put his name to his words.

If you had listened to my radio shows regarding Nephilim and Reptilians, rather than simply Google titles of shows, I am sure you also heard me refer, many times, to all of it as "mythology." Oh, but then again, you didn't actually LISTEN, you simply Googled a list of shows on which I appeared as a guest. Had you listened, you might have been informed.

Do you even know what "Esoteric Naziism" is? And can a researcher be interested in the topic without adhering to its mandates or principles? How well do you know John Ward, and how intimately have you studied his work? I happen to know John Ward, and he's no Nazi.

I have never, not even once, discussed UFOs. Its not my topic, and I know nothing about them. I have however, been a guest on internet UFO radio shows, on which people ask me what I think about the phenomena. I generally refer them to people who know more on the topic.

As for Zechariah Sitchin, I have written about him. I take his scholarship to task in two of my books. His linguistics were off, and his interpretations were faulty. And if you knew anything about Sitchin's work, you could certainly never connect his theories to me. Conversely, if you knew anything about MY work, you couldn't make the connection to Sitchin, other than to see how deeply I disregard his work.

Step out into the light. Give us your REAL name, stop hiding behind anonymity, and let's see what YOU are all about. So far, you are simply another internet parrot hiding behind your anonymity for the purpose of acting poorly.

Prove me wrong.

Scotty Roberts link

11/24/2014 11:52:57 am

InquisitorX,
I propose a new theory. One in which I can prove by way of evidence in this blog alone, that while you can spout off about someone, you possess no courage of conviction. If you did hold such courage, you would not hide your statements behind a pseudonym, posting your character slights in anonymity.

I contend that you have no power of conviction, and that your words are simply the internet rantings of someone who has great power when in anonymity, but in reality possesses only the weakness of having not a single shred of integrity.

I further contend that you are afraid to do what I do, and that is to state your real name, and contact information, as I have done. The power of rightness and conviction are things one should want to put his name to, but you are satisfied hollering from the shadows.

I contend that you are simply void of any accomplishment, so you sit at your keyboard and attempt to belittle through vapid epithets and hollow charges, those who actually “Do things.”

Go ahead... prove me wrong. Prove to me and everyone else that my words about you and my appraisal of your character is incorrect.

Now, as you have done with my other topics, take me to task and tell everyone how wrong I am. Call me out for my incorrectness, my fraudulent theory and my cowardice. I am sure there will be some new post where you attempt to dismantle my words, here, or laugh them and me off as a fraudulent “nutter.”

I know you will not be able to stand up to the challenge, but will, rather, either ignore it, or find fault with me in some other way, dispensing a new string of degradations, dismissives and caterwauls in order to attempt to derail my theory, or divert the topic to something else that makes you look big and all-knowing.

Perhaps a bit overused, but nonetheless pertinent…
“It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.”
~ Theodore Roosevelt

InquisitorX

11/25/2014 12:38:10 am

I'm not the one making false claims for myself or attempting to get on tv like you and your cohort, so my name isn't even important. I've revealed my last name once here already and the fact that I'm Jewish. That's more than I need to reveal.

You're the one who is desperate to put yourself in the spotlight, not me. You're the one making fraudulent claims of academic position and title, not me.

This isn't about me or my ideas. It's about you and your cohorts ideas. And from where I and plenty of others stand Scotty Roberts and John Ward are fakes and probably racists, despite the attempts you posted below to clean it up.

To claim your theories have no connection to Christian Identity when the facts are there for anyone to see that they do is really just insane.

Run along now. Maybe your cohort can dowse your way to the fame you seek. Oh look! Your cohorts original Nazi logo is in his videos.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lEIvbvHHx_4&list=TLFZ6T8j6jsh4

InquisitorX

11/25/2014 12:49:11 am

From John Ward's YouTube page:

"The Sirius project covers many topics of investigation that has at its central core "symbolism". Some of these topics cover the multitude of myths and legends that have contributed to our own makeup as a modern society. Within these myths and legends lay many prophecies that have fueled many of today's conspiracy theories. However as we have stated before behind each legend and myth lays an element of truth no matter how small or how insignificant we may think it is. There are many interpretations of these prophecies out there and to have a better understanding we take the time to look at them all and try and find the link between them all and then seek the evidence and fact we need to substantiate them.
The sacred sites of Egypt have been the subject of much discussion in relation to their alignments both cosmologically and esoterically. These alignments have been subject of our own researches over the years and whether they have played a part in any of the prophecies that have either taken place or are due to take place. One of the questions's which we have been regularly asking ourselves and a great number of other likeminded individuals pertains to the precise alignments that some of these temples currently have, are these alignments co-incidental or are they intentional. What is their purpose? Do ley lines play a role in this and how can this be substantiated within academic circles. These questions and many like them are the product of much research; if you feel you have anything to contribute to the research in any way please do contact us.
Dr John R Ward Bt.Mc.GM.KT."

Ley lines, esoteric....ummm...yeah...

InquisitorX

11/25/2014 12:57:15 am

And as for Ward's fascination with Esoteric Nazism, these links tell you all you need to know about that topic.

http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2011/spring/former-neo-nazi-explains-esoteric-nazism

http://www.gnosticliberationfront.com/miguel_serrano.htm

And then this woman, who had a strange fascination with ancient Egypt, just like "Dr." John Ward:

http://www.savitridevi.org/

Scotty Roberts link

11/25/2014 01:29:18 am

Your smarminess is directly linked to your anonymity. You obviously do not have the fortitude to put your name to your repeated attacks.

No one has made false claims. You're simply wrong. There is no fraud, no obfuscation, and certainly no desperation.

So what that you're Jewish. Most of my family is Jewish. None of my theories are remotely connected to Christian Identity, so you obviously do not understand the topic. And if you can't see that, you're simply obtuse.

You throw out barbs and further attacks for the sole purpose of elevating yourself in your own sociopathic drive to feed some need to feel important.

You are just another anonymous internet troll who has a keen ability with Google. But your lack of originality and true ability to dialog and debate is obvious.

InquisitorX

11/25/2014 04:19:52 am

Every time someone proves with facts you're wrong, your claims are fraudulent and your theories are connected to racism the only response you have is, "Nuh uh! You're a meanie! You're stupid!"

Facts don't like, mate. And the facts prove you and your cohort are frauds and possibly racists.

InquisitorX

11/25/2014 04:21:21 am

*Facts don't LIE.

They don't like you either. lol

Scotty Roberts link

11/25/2014 06:54:29 am

You haven't proven anything, InquisitorX. If I am still telling you that the little Google clips you've posted aren't representative of all the facts, you want to still camp on them.

So, no, you haven't "proven" anything. You have simply found Google search links that say I was on a "UFO" radio shgow talking about my books.

You posted something from Ward's own site talking about dowsing, but not about Esoteric Naziism. Although he makes no bones about researching ancient Esotericism and Hermetics.

You keep attempting to say that we are misrepresenting our credentials, when we clearly are not.

You call us "desperate," which we are not... and your list of charges continues to go on and on and on, ad infinitum. But I have noticed that whenever one of your charges is countered, you simply move on to another jibe for something else.

As far as facts lying, I have fully countered your inane "Christian Identity" charge, but you chose not to respond to that one. Probably because you have no real idea what you are talking about without Googling something - which you do NOT to find fact, but to attempt to root out something new to caterwaul about.

I think the fact that I am here, and everyone knows who I am, trumps your anonymous bilging.

So, no, you haven't proven any sort of case at all. All you have done is bring up things that YOU might think are "fringe," and that's it.

I think you need to work a little harder to prove your case.

Let's do this... I'll challenge you to a public debate on any of the issues you have brought up. Not a silly tit-for-tat on someone's blog post comment thread, but on air. We can do it live or pre-recorded and we'll broadcast it.

Are you up for the challenge to go head-to-head? Or is that a little too scary away from your Google...?

And in all sincerity you are simply an anonymous idiot.

Scotty Roberts link

11/25/2014 07:48:47 am

And just so I am understanding your version of "proof"... external links to what Esoteric Naziism is your proof that John Ward is a Nazi?

Hahahaha.

No, really... seriously?

Scotty Roberts link

11/25/2014 11:36:11 am

InquisitorX,
You provided this quote from John Ward's YouTube page...
"The Sirius project covers many topics of investigation that has at its central core "symbolism." Some of these topics cover the multitude of myths and legends that have contributed to our own makeup as a modern society..."

In posting this as your "proof" that John Ward is a Nazi, you actually just countered your own argument.

John researches and has interest in "esoteric naziism," for the same reason he has interest in many other topics revolving around esotericism and hermetics - the SYMBOLISM.

That is what John does, and has done for the last 15+ years, he researches and studies ancient symbolism and how it has been carried over into modern use.

*BUUUZZZZ* Thank you for playing. You are wrong, once again.

Nice try.

InquisitorX

11/26/2014 04:21:11 am

I didn't post the description as proof "Dr." John Ward is a Nazi. I posted it so others could see the weirdness that your cohort "academic" is into. The only part I noted that was connected to Nazis is the logo at the beginning of the video that shows the Nazi SS ring as clear as day. That coupled with his interest in Esoteric Nazism (and I posted links to that already), along with your racial Biblical theories of Noah being "pure blooded" and your serpent seed theory being connected to racist Christian Identity crap leads to the logical possibility that you two are racists.

What I find funny is that its pretty damned obvious your theories are connected to racism and you still squeal like a pig that you're being unfairly persecuted.

Martyr complex?

Scotty Roberts link

11/26/2014 07:49:43 am

So, InquisitorX, you are now tacitly admitting to making false assumptions about Ward.

You know nothing of his research nor *why* he used Nazi symbolism, yet you are stretching to the conclusion that he must be racist without delving into his body of work of Symbolism.

You make claims and utter rancorous conclusions without knowing your material. How very "Sitchin" of you.

You continue to utterly ignore the context of the phrase "pure blooded," a used in my work. You have no idea what I wrote about yet you are willing to let someone else's criticisms govern your attacks.

Brilliant, Sherlock.

What you find as being "pretty damned obvious," is really you being unable to realize that you are wholly mistaken. To put it kindly.

Correlation does not imply causation. I cry "cum hoc ergo propter hoc" on you. Its not a perfect fit, but it works for your brand of ignorance.

Scotty Roberts link

11/26/2014 07:52:32 am

...and I never claimed that I was being - or even remotely feeling - persecuted.

I just think you're an idiot.

Scotty Roberts link

11/24/2014 12:58:58 pm

Once again, InquisitorX, by omitting context, you have grossly misrepresented what I wrote.

When I write of “pure race,” I am speaking of ALL of Humanity versus a race of “Heavenly Elohim,” as mentioned in the Hebrew scriptures. Cain was of the mixed blood of Human and Elohim, according to the Jewish religious texts, whereas Noah descended from Seth, Adam and Eve’s third-born son, fathering the “PURE HUMANS” - not a “race” but ALL of Humanity.

And, keep in mind, we are talking about celestial interbreeding with humans on one side, versus pure humans on the other. So, if I am “racist” in any way shape and form, it is that my writings on Noah describe pure humanity versus a humanity mixed with the blood of the heavenly Elohim, in accordance with Genesis 6.

And I have NEVER written that the Jews descended from Cain - you certainly could’t have gleaned that from my body of work. I have written that the Jewish lineage descended from Adam and Eve’s son, Seth, as set forth in the genealogies, and after that from Noah. The only “impure” humans were those fathered by the Elohim, embodied in the lineage of Cain, who, in my research, represented the first of the biblical Nephilim.

And, frankly, I am writing about biblical religious mythology, not anthropology. The context of my work was an examination of Old Testament religious myth.

As for the Kinsman Redeemer, that was the Jewish understanding of the prophesied Messiah - a savior who would be “one of us.” Whether you believe that the Messiah has come or not, he was prophesied to be of “pure human blood” - the “kinsman.”

And, again, in case you missed it, ALL of humanity came from the line of Seth, according to Hebrew religious mythology. The line of Cain had absolutely NOTHING to do with the Jews, but was a line bequeathed by “Nachash” of the Genesis story, one of the bene ha’ Elohim ( בני האלהים ) of genesis chapter six. And that bloodline, in accordance with Hebrew scripture, ended at the flood.

And, finally, NONE of this is even remotely similar to Christian Identity Theology. I think you need to do your homework a little better before you embarrass yourself even more.

Now, tell me again how am I am somehow “anti-Semitic…”

11/25/2014 01:10:43 pm

I was away and am not reading all the new posts. Can someone give me a TL;DR? Is Scotty making claims that sound anti-Semitic to some people? What's going on?

Scotty Roberts link

11/25/2014 02:56:54 pm

Yes, EP, that's the claim being made.

InquisitorX is parroting something that was said on this blog site, way back when I wrote a review of the movie "Noah."

Scotty Roberts link

11/25/2014 03:23:02 pm

InquisitorX also snidely charged, earlier, that I must be a follower/supporter of Sitchin's works.

Yet, another point on which he was blatantly mistaken. Proving, once again, that he doesn't really know anything about his topic.

InquisitorX

11/26/2014 04:25:27 am

EP- I pointed out Roberts theories are racist and connected to Christian Identity as Jason Colavito already has here on this website. I provided links to Christian Identity websites and the Southern Poverty Law Center explaining exactly what Christian Identity nuts say on the same subjects and they match up in every detail. The only difference is Roberts doesn't overtly present the same conclusion as they do, which is we Jews are of the seed of Cain and evil. So to refute it he now claims he's Jewish. lmao

Lame. He just keeps weaving a tangled web of deceit.

Scotty Roberts link

11/26/2014 04:58:18 am

InquisitorX,
Where did you see me claim to be Jewish? Another example of your cursory understanding of nearly everything you spout about, is tainted by your inability to discern facts that are right in front of your face.

And if you utilize Colavito's blog, alone, to determine whether or not I have theories aligning with Christian Identity, you are a buffoon who has not done any real research.

"The world is falt!"
"No, the world is round!"
Same topic, diametrically opposing conclusions.

While I utilize the same Hebrew mythology as the CI-ers, I have drawn exponentially opposing conclusions. One can study and research the same subject matter, and draw extremely different conclusions.

Again, you need to do your homework a little better, and expand your search criteria. All you have done is attempt to level criticism, without really knowing your topic, and the result is you continuing to display your ignorance.

So... tell me again how I am anti-semitic in my conclusions, and how I am being deceitful. Your caterwauls are becoming woefully repetitive, and waning.

Scotty Roberts link

11/26/2014 04:59:20 am

Typo:
"flat," not falt.

Scotty Roberts link

11/26/2014 10:46:27 am

From my lips to God's ears, InquisitorX... let me help you out of your confused state.

I said, "Most of my family is Jewish." I didn't claim to BE Jewish. And, frankly, I stated it that way to see if you'd take the bait and scoff at me claiming to be Jewish. Which you did. Idiot.

My mother's step-father was Jewish. My mother, brother, sister and I were the five "Goy" in my very large Jewish family. I am of Welsh/Scot descent.

InquisitorX

11/26/2014 12:28:35 pm

Please. You meant to imply you were Jewish to avoid the fact that your theories are implicitly racist and connected to Christian Identity.

Now you try to save face by adding another lie to all of your previous lies and claim it was just "bait". lmao

The fact is you and your cohort aren't what you claim to be, your theories are racist, your cohort has a fascination with Nazism to the point of making the SS ring part of his logo, and you're desperate to seem reasonable and academic when your record says you aren't.

Facts are stubborn things, aren't they?

Going to be difficult to hide all the dirt if you get on telly, innit?

lol

Scotty Roberts link

11/26/2014 12:58:59 pm

InquisitorX,
Once again, you are completely wrong. That's gotta start getting old for you.

I didn't "imply" anything. You said that you were Jewish. I said that "most of my family" was Jewish. Takes the intended weight out of your argument.

Yes, facts are stubborn things. And the fact is that you have nothing to say of any substance.

Well, my dirt's never been hidden - oh, wait... I bounced a check once back in '96....

11/28/2014 02:47:08 pm

This thread keeps getting more and more awesome. Scotty Roberts is clearly incapable of grasping that sometimes silence really is golden.

I mean, come on, even Bill Cosby gets that much!

Scotty Roberts link

11/28/2014 04:03:12 pm

I trust you did not just compare me to Bill Cosby, EP. hahaha.

Between you and me, I'm not incapable of grasping the concept of "silence being golden" - and have actually been advised by some to simply walk away.

However, I never want it said that I didn't make an attempt to dialog.

And if my hunches are correct, someone will look for fault in that statement, as well.

11/30/2014 09:09:12 am

"I trust you did not just compare me to Bill Cosby, EP. hahaha."

Hahahahaha. Yes I did.

"I never want it said that I didn't make an attempt to dialog."

You probably should have at least attempted to come across convincingly as someone who is trying to answer questions. I know you were too busy talking about poop and basement-dwelling nerds, but still...

Your hunches are correct. Feel free to rejoice in that intellectual accomplishment. It compares favorably to most of the ones you claim for yourself.

InquisitorX

11/29/2014 04:05:19 am

This is just golden. So I'm reading over your comments and find an inconsistency. I went back and took a look and find you outed yourself in a lie. In the article here on "Dr." John Ward's use of Nazi symbols the following was reported.

"Ward claims that the graphic designer added the symbols without his knowledge."

I'm assuming that information came from you or someone you told it to since it apparently came from a source who knows you two. Yet here in this thread you say this:

""You know nothing of his research nor *why* he used Nazi symbolism"

Looks like you're caught lying again. It doesn't work both ways. "Dr." John Ward can't be an innocent victim of using Nazi symbols in his logo and at the same time using them knowingly in his logo.

lmao

Keep yapping. You make the case against you two all by yourself.

Scotty Roberts link

11/29/2014 04:53:46 pm

You're working way too hard to find some insidious chink in the armor, InquisitorX.

You wouldn't have to speculate so much if you simply contacted the source and asked.

That would take growing a pair, though.

Scotty Roberts link

11/29/2014 04:58:10 pm

By the way, I am not the original graphic designer. But I did design a new logo reflecting symbols found at Gebel el Silsila.

InquisitorX

11/30/2014 02:02:45 am

You keep trying to deflect there pal. You know you stepped in it and exposed you and your cohort as liars.

It isnt speculation that you and your cohort are lying here. You know it and now everybody else knows it.

Thanks for playing, chump.

InquisitorX

11/30/2014 02:05:58 am

Oh yeah and by the way, since you're fixated on "growing a pair"- admitting you and your cohort bloody well lied to cover up the truth of his Nazi logo would take "growing a pair."

I dont think you're man enough to do it from what I see here.

You're caught red handed mate. Just shut up and go away now.

Scotty Roberts link

11/30/2014 07:48:18 am

Once again, you're simply wrong. That's got to start to sting after a while.

You can be as vociferously damning as you'd like, but you are still wrong. But that's simply a byproduct of casting anonymous dispersions from the sidelines.

We're not writing treatises here, we're commenting in a social networking blog thread. If you needed clarity beyond your speculations, I can certainly clear it up for you.

But you are convinced in your position prior to any real dialog. Then you dance a jig over the one inconsistency you believe you've found.

Bravo.

Scotty Roberts link

11/30/2014 07:53:02 am

As for "growing a pair," I'm the one here, under my own name, providing my contact information.

You are the one still sitting in anonymity, lacking the conviction to put your name to your words.

InquisitorX

11/30/2014 09:07:42 am

I dont just believe I caught your ass. Its right there in black and white- liar.

You have nobody to be angry with but yourself. You outed your lie. I just noticed it.

How's it feel to show yourself a liar to anyone who reads this, mate?

You keep trying to make this about anything but the fact that you got caught in a lie. lol

Truth just kicked you in the bum. Harsh, innit? lmao

Scotty Roberts link

11/30/2014 10:19:53 am

I know you are REALLY excited about your new "discovery," but, needless to say, I haven't lied about anything. No matter how viciously you attempt to push your case.

I am still not sure how you are connecting your dots to even come to that conclusion. On one hand you say an old article on this blog says one thing, and I said something differently on this blog article. How that equates to me lying is as innocuous as every other charge you've made.

I'm not being deliberately obtuse, I simply am lost in your vacuous logic leading to your ridiculous conclusion.

It really doesn't matter to me what gleeful connectivities you think you've made, but you also keep continuing to drive your point regarding my other writings. And I keep countering your argument.

If you think you've stumbled upon the quintessential tidbit that you can now hang your hat on, then go right ahead. All you've been doing all along is casting dispersions and throwing anonymous attacks - what makes your charge of "liar" anything new and exciting?

I'm certainly unmoved by it, as I know better.

Scotty Roberts link

11/30/2014 11:08:34 am

Just so I follow your reasoning, let me recap what you've said to me...

1) YOU SAID:
"'Ward claims that the graphic designer added the symbols without his knowledge.' I'm assuming that information came from you or someone you told it to since it apparently came from a source who knows you two."

MY RESPONSE:
Nice assumption. At best, you are quoting second-hand material from “someone” who criticized Ward, sourced solely in a blog that was also critical of Ward. Of course, your bias has already dictated that you have no desire to find facts other than those that seemingly support your notion. (Further, isn’t the source of your quote regarding the graphic designer, someone who has also fallen under criticism from this blog, and has subsequently left as a result? I rest my case on the validity of what you use as source material to substantiate your overt one-sided criticisms.)

Your objectivity is leaving me breathless.

2) YOU SAID:
(quoting me) “‘You know nothing of his research nor *why* he used Nazi symbolism.' (then directed to me) Looks like you're caught lying again. It doesn't work both ways. 'Dr.' John Ward can't be an innocent victim of using Nazi symbols in his logo and at the same time using them knowingly in his logo."

MY RESPONSE:
And I am lying.... how?

In all your efforts to prove us to be liars, frauds, con-artists, delusional, etc, etc, etc... that's your paramount argument? The best ya got?

If you re-read what I said above, here is the point I was making:

"So, InquisitorX, you are now tacitly admitting to making false assumptions about Ward. You know nothing of his research, nor *why* he used Nazi symbolism, yet you are stretching to the conclusion that he must be racist without delving into his body of work on Symbolism. You make claims and utter (voice) rancorous conclusions without knowing your material."

Whether Ward knowingly used Nazi symbols on his logo design for the purpose of expressing his inner Nazi, is something you'll never know without doing your research a little better. Perhaps you should ask Ward directly, rather than relying on second hand criticism posted on a social blog thread.

Or you could simply continue to assume you know everything there is to know, based on your limited knowledge.

If you want to call me a liar, that's certainly your choice. But to do so from anonymity is pretty shallow. Any idiot can insult and criticize from the behind the veil of anonymity. And your cock-suredness comes solely because you will never have to be accountable for your anonymous charges. THAT, my friend, is cowardice at its best, and the ultimate lie.

Again, you are simply wrong, and you continue to hold a very weak position by not availing yourself of the plethora of information outside this blog.

You didn't catch me or anyone in a lie. But if you want to pat yourself on the back for thinking so, have at.

Only Me

11/30/2014 01:32:53 pm

"Further, isn’t the source of your quote regarding the graphic designer, someone who has also fallen under criticism from this blog, and has subsequently left as a result? I rest my case on the validity of what you use as source material to substantiate your overt one-sided criticisms."

Two questions, Mr. Roberts.

One, to whom are you referring? Two, are you suggesting that anyone who has faced criticism from this blog is automatically rendered an invalid source on anything?

Scotty Roberts link

11/30/2014 05:29:50 pm

Only Me,
I won't state who I believe that person to be, mostly because he isn't here to defend his position, and its irrelevant.

As for "automatic invalidity," I would say that is not necessarily the case. But you'll have to admit, this blog doesn't seem to exist to dialog and converse about ideas... it seems to focus more on how to discredit, pick apart and invalidate - along with lots of cheap shots. ;)

Dialog works best when people are on equal footing. A few anonymous questions are fine, but when it comes to lengthy character degradation and overt insult, one should butch-up and face the person he is accusing on equal ground.

The ability to do those things while remaining anonymous promotes the lack of accountability.

As for me, if one wants to hold my feet to the fire, they should at least do it while looking me in the eye. Anonymous accusers are cheap.

Only Me

11/30/2014 06:48:36 pm

"But you'll have to admit, this blog doesn't seem to exist to dialog and converse about ideas"

I'm afraid I'll have to respectfully disagree with that assessment.

Speaking only from my own personal experience, I've tried to enter discourse, on this blog, with some individuals that held views outside the mainstream, only to be dismissed, insulted, condemned or threatened with a lawsuit. Apparently, confronting these individuals with facts I found in my research, or, their own words to demonstrate the contradictions within their positions, was tantamount to a personal attack, character assassination or the result of a cult-like hive mind. I have seen comments left by individuals encouraging Jason to commit suicide, threaten to shut down this site or file a lawsuit...because they didn't like what he had to say or the content of his articles.

Now, I'm not going to tell you my hands are clean. I've given as good as I've got. However, it is hard to have dialogue or discussion of ideas when you're expecting mudslinging from the start. All I can ask you is not to judge the entirety of this blog or its commenters solely on the exchanges you've had in this thread.

Scotty Roberts link

12/1/2014 03:41:48 am

I appreciate that, ONLY ME.

And you are correct. You have definitely been respectful and open in your approach to dialoging, here. And I appreciate that.

The tone you use engenders decent response. I guess I focus more of my thoughts on this to guys like InquisitorX. He lurched right out of the gate with charges of fraud, deceit, cowardice, con-artistry, etc, and then expected that I should answer his questions as if I owed him a response.

I am an open book, and always have been. I have lots of open dialog on my FaceBook page, and get into a helluva lot of discussions. But I have a rule on my page that no one belittles anyone else. You can have a differing opinion, but state it respectfully.

Thanks for correcting me on this point.

12/2/2014 05:52:28 am

Can people talk about poop on your Facebook page? Or is that a privilege you reserve for yourself only?

Scotty Roberts link

12/3/2014 02:53:36 am

EP,
People can talk about poop or whatever they'd like over on my FaceBook page. All I have ever asked of anyone is that they act decently and respectfully.

https://www.facebook.com/mr.scotty.roberts

11/30/2014 09:10:33 am

Is John Ward a Nazi? Will Scotty Roberts tell us more about poop?

Stay tuned!

Scotty Roberts link

11/30/2014 11:13:11 am

Depends on what "poop" you want to know more about.

Fr. Jack Ashcraft

12/1/2014 01:40:03 am

Scotty,
Since you have ignored my messages to you I am forced to address your comments here. I want to be certain I understand your statements here accurately. Are you claiming that I lied about you saying John Ward didn't put the Nazi symbols on his logo, but that they were placed there by his logo artist, who as I recall was supposed to be a Hindu? If indeed you are claiming this is a lie from myself then I will be forced to provide screen captures of private messages wherein you absolutely made that claim on his behalf. Beyond this, you told the same tale to others, and I can provide screen captures of conversations with them discussing it.

I don't know what your motivation was for making your recent statement here that no one knows why John Ward used Nazi symbols, but it is in conflict with your earlier comments to myself and others. Cast your aspersions all you wish, but I have not lied about you or your statement regarding John Ward's logo.

I've attempted recently to make some degree of amends with you, and you claimed to want that as well. I think now you were simply hoping to silence another voice of criticism rather than seeking true reconciliation.

I will consider whether I will post screen captures on my own website carefully. Unfortunately you seem incapable of transparency.

InquisitorX

12/1/2014 02:29:34 am

lmao

Post them! Looks like the poop is hitting the fan!

Scotty Roberts link

12/1/2014 05:04:41 am

Of course you would interpret it that way, InquisitorX. That is what you are all about.

I don;t see it as "poop stirring," but rather an opportunity to clarify.

Cheers.

Scotty Roberts link

12/1/2014 05:13:05 am

At least Father Jack is not some anonymous idiot egging on conflict from the sidelines. You're a real winner.

He and I do not agree on everything, but we have a friendship that goes back a bit. We've had our fallings out, but we do retain a respect for each other, despite.

12/1/2014 10:24:37 am

"At least Father Jack is not some anonymous idiot"

Well, he most certainly isn't anonymous...

CollectiveVoice

12/3/2014 10:59:30 am

Says the resident educated idiot.

12/3/2014 11:02:06 am

Gunn, is that you? Steve? Fr. Jack?

Scotty Roberts link

12/3/2014 05:42:28 pm

...Barack? Jim-Bob? Robot...?

12/3/2014 06:42:05 pm

Are you trying to appear clever, or are you just confused? It's impossible to tell...

Scotty Roberts link

12/4/2014 01:22:33 am

No EP, just following a page out of your own handbook: the making of singularly-relevant statements for my own personal amusement.

Are you confused, or are you just obtuse" Its impossible to tell...

12/5/2014 01:13:02 pm

Every single one of them deserved it. (I mean the ones I named... Come back, Gregor! I love you! I didn't mean to hurt your feelings!)

Scotty Roberts link

12/6/2014 02:51:43 pm

I think the first person that needs to be "gotten rid of," is that guy who lives inside Jason's head, telling him he must never disavow himself of his personal bias.

Scotty Roberts link

12/1/2014 04:58:47 am

Father Jack,
Oh, no. I am not saying you lied. As a matter of fact, I didn't even know for sure it was your comments InquisitorX was referring to.

You and I have talked a lot in private over the last few years, and had I thought you were lying about something, you most certainly would have heard your phone ringing.

I would never call someone a liar in absentia - you know me pretty well, and hopefully that clears that little part up.

As for ignoring your messages about saying anything on this thread, you ar correct. I ignored that. A few others have said it is probably not worth responding to, anymore, either.

And while you don;t agree with me on everything, you are someone who always talks to me personally. And I appreciate that.

What I did say about Ward was that if people want to know what his motivations are, simply ask him.

I'm sorry of what I said here led you to think I was accusing you of lying. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

Scotty Roberts link

12/1/2014 05:19:40 am

...and if you look back at what I said, I didn't accuse you of lying. I merely was making the point that if InquisitorX wanted to hang his hat solely on what he reads on this blog, he is not getting all available information.

Anonymous accusers are idiots with no power of conviction. At least YOU have always talked to me to my face about the things you have problems with. And even when we vehemently disagree, that is respectable, and I appreciate it.

Th problem we have on this thread - which you warned me about, and I did not heed - is that people who remain in anonymity while casting public dispersions, are not worth the time.

Fr. Jack Ashcraft

12/1/2014 07:56:55 am

My apologies for misunderstanding your intent, Scotty. We agree on the hubris of spreading lies and calumny from a point of anonymity.

I dare say if such people had to face the just effect of their words here they would be hesitant to post some of the things they do.

Scotty Roberts link

12/1/2014 08:27:10 am

Cheers, Father Jack.

12/1/2014 10:18:09 am

Speaking of poop, look who's back!

Scotty Roberts link

12/1/2014 11:10:57 am

See? That is what I'm talking about. What is the possible good out of a statement like that?

12/1/2014 12:51:04 pm

Amusement. Which is more than can be said about literal booksful of statements you've made.

Scotty Roberts link

12/1/2014 01:32:32 pm

Sometimes booksful are needed to respond to booksful. Diatribe begets diatribe in order to avoid further diatribe. Wishful booksful.

12/3/2014 11:05:23 am

Scotty: "The world must hear the truth about the Nephilim and the Reptilians! I'm a serious academic researcher! Pay attention to me!"

Scotty Roberts link

12/3/2014 05:32:43 pm

EP,
And...?

Scotty Roberts link

12/3/2014 05:36:57 pm

Sorry, EP, I probably used too few words for you. Let me rephrase and add some more...

And... your point is...? You've read the books and have determined what...?

12/3/2014 06:42:56 pm

What I just said. Was any of it unclear?

Scotty Roberts link

12/4/2014 01:25:37 am

No, its not unclear at all. It demonstrates clearly that you have no idea what I write about, nor my attitude about it.

12/5/2014 01:10:51 pm

How does it demonstrate that, exactly? Especially while remaining unclear...

And you're wrong - I'm pretty well acquainted with your work. Much better than it deserves, in fact.

Scotty Roberts link

12/6/2014 02:30:25 pm

I'll accept that as a need to stand corrected, EP.

Scotty Roberts link

12/6/2014 02:47:10 pm

However, EP, I would correct your statement: "The world must hear the truth about the Nephilim and the Reptilians! I'm a serious academic researcher! Pay attention to me!"

I have never been out to "proclaim truth" in any of my books or work, nor have I ever held the position that I hold the "truth" on anything.

In my book written with Ward, "The Exodus Reality" (publisher's title, not ours), I do present historical fact on which I build my theory about who the historical Moses may have been. And I adhere, in that book, to the idea that biblical history and archaeology are efficacious, despite being contained in books of faith.

But I make no proclamations of "truth."

12/6/2014 03:56:54 pm

I'm not going to dispute absurdly categorical claims like "I make no proclamations of truth". So if there is anything else you'd like to promote while you're here, don't mind me. Scott Wolter, Christopher Knowles, Bruce Fenton, Greg Little... I'm sure none of them ever regretted anything they said on this blog, so you're in stellar company.

Scotty Roberts link

12/7/2014 04:24:08 am

Ok, EP. As long as you're happy and satisfied.

Cheers.

12/7/2014 06:14:32 am

Let's not go crazy

Scotty Roberts link

12/7/2014 11:45:38 am

I've got that one covered. ;)

Scotty Roberts link

12/8/2014 02:16:07 am

EP SAID:
"Scott Wolter, Christopher Knowles, Bruce Fenton, Greg Little... I'm sure none of them ever regretted anything they said on this blog, so you're in stellar company."

I think that statement demonstrates the operational fallacy, here, EP - that the people criticized on Jason's blog need to somehow regret saying anything to defend their positions.

None of the people you - nor I - are any different than you and others, here. We are all commentators in someone else's blog thread. You are not part of some sitting board that stands to validate nor invalidate anyone else's work. We're all just people commenting on somebody's blog, some nameless, others not afraid of being who they are.

If there was more open dialog, rather than sideways verbal cuffs and anonymous criticism, there might be something very constructive about this blog. Jason you need to look into that.

EP SAID:
"I'm not going to dispute absurdly categorical claims like 'I make no proclamations of truth.'"

I don;t think I have made any statement "proclaiming truth." That's not what I do. I am not presenting a theology nor some belief system to which I need to attract proselytes. I don;t "preach" anything.

You day you are familiar with my books. If that is true, then you would notice that the things I present range from notion to theory, but generally in the context f examining religious mythology. You might be correct in your above statement were I to ask people to put their faith in Zeus, or worship at the altar of Mithras.

EP SAID:
"So if there is anything else you'd like to promote while you're here, don't mind me."

I don;t think I have "promoted" anything here, outside the context of responding to a charge/attack housed in critical statement, or by answering a direct question. But now that you mention promotion, what author doesn't promote what he writes? Even Jason promotes his blog and seeks donations to help support his efforts. We are no different - nobody writes anything so it can be locked away in a vault. They write things for other people to read.

Scotty Roberts link

12/8/2014 02:18:39 am

Pardon my copious typos. I am only on my first cup o' joe.

12/8/2014 04:41:45 am

I think we can live with you not finding this blog constructive.

I find it ironic that you speak of "operational fallacies" while simultaneously misunderstanding what I said as proposing to derive an "ought" from and "is". Also, you don't seem to understand how truth is related to making statements.

For the rest of it, your responses are predictable three steps in advance (except for when you call people "Internet turds" and "basement dwelling nerds"), so it's really not interesting to talk to you.

Besides, I doubt anyone is reading this thread at this point. Next time Jason makes a thread about you, I'll happily discuss your work at length. In the meantime, anyone interested can just read Jason's several threads about it.

(Feel free to proclaim that I'm running away from you or whatever...)

Scotty Roberts link

12/8/2014 07:00:18 am

EP,
I would never think that you run away. That is a charge generally hurled by the anonymous attacker side of things, when the object of their attacks considers it all a waste of time.

I understand the "waste of time" factor, too, but I also have no problems engaging.

My misunderstanding of what you said can most probably be attributed to the second-hand form of communication indicative of internet blog threads. None of us are writing papers and treatises here, so sometimes meanings can be easily misinterpreted.

And, frankly, if all you've got to say is summed up by your comments here, I am not all that keen on talking with you, either. I have much more constructive dialogs with people who are out in the open - of both the pro and con nature.

So, forgive me if I mimic your sentiments on that point.

Until another time...

12/8/2014 07:54:27 am

"My misunderstanding of what you said can most probably be attributed to the second-hand form of communication indicative of internet blog threads."

Scotty Roberts is totally a real and serious academic! Observe the intellectuality of his big smart-people word usings and despair!

Scotty Roberts link

12/8/2014 05:02:10 pm

Oh, c'mon... "misunderstanding" may have five syllables, but it ain't THAT big of a word.

But reading your posts makes me talk real good.

12/9/2014 09:20:03 am

Good thing you're always there when you need a pat on the back...

Scotty Roberts link

12/9/2014 12:16:12 pm

That was the best non sequitur deflection I have read from you, yet.

12/9/2014 03:42:30 pm

Do you mean that I'm deflecting a non sequitur? Or that I'm deflecting with a non sequitur? Because if it's the latter, then (a) I didn't think there was anything to deflect in your latest passive-aggressive attempt to joke your way to the last word, and (b) you're here trying to direct people's attention away from your hetero life mate's misleading claims of academic credentials and your own nutjob Reptilian drivel, which makes any claim of yours that I'm deflecting rather ironic.

Scotty Roberts link

12/9/2014 04:47:27 pm

I meant precisely what I said. You are deflecting by use of a non sequitur: congratulating myself with some sort of glib superficiality.

You tend to incorporate this means whenever you are attempting to be dismissive. Many of your statements are such - mere, barely informed opining from the anonymous sidelines, completely incongruent with the main tit-for-tat.

Regarding my "nutjob reptilian drivel," its obvious you have no idea what it was I wrote about in that book. All you need do is hail to the subtitle: "The Pervasive Presence of the Serpent in Human History, Religion and Alien Mythos."

Passive aggressive? Hardly. Just consider who between the two of us is casting dispersion from behind the veil of anonymity.

As for utilizing humor, I do it in order to break the monotony. Perhaps it is self-delusion, but I tend to think that when out in the open, you are probably a decent guy who understands that serious disagreement can be laced with wit and humor. Even when its on a topic that bears much more serious import than this one.

You also cannot seem to gnaw enough on that old bone of heterosexuality. I suppose you also still want to hold to the notion that a tweed jacket, blue jeans, hat and cravat somehow are representative of imposing a victorian empiricism on the "poor, uneducated, little brown peoples of the world."

As for Ward's academic credentials, that has always and ever been public knowledge, a fact established in this thread a very long time ago. It’s not our fault that you are a latecomer critic. So you, indeed, bring those topics up, again, simply in an attempt to revive arguments already handily addressed. The fact that your desire is to adhere to a preconceived bias is not relevant. And the funny thing is, you do this as if you are someone who hasn't got any real substance on which to stand, but who still needs to cast dispersion - "Oh yeah?? Well... you're still ugly." Pretty silly.

12/10/2014 09:21:29 am

You shouldn't confuse deflection and tangential commentary. Since there obviously was nothing to deflect, if for no other reason...

"I suppose you also still want to hold to the notion that a tweed jacket, blue jeans, hat and cravat somehow are representative of imposing a victorian empiricism on the "poor, uneducated, little brown peoples of the world.""

I was the first person in this thread to express reservations about that part of Jason's discussion.

"Regarding my "nutjob reptilian drivel," its obvious you have no idea what it was I wrote about in that book. All you need do is hail to the subtitle: "The Pervasive Presence of the Serpent in Human History, Religion and Alien Mythos.""

First of all, please stop using expressions like "all you need do is hail" - you may not consciously be trying to make yourself sound smarter than you really are, but you just come across as a pompous windbag. Next, if you object to your work being described as "nutjob reptilian drivel", you shouldn't have written stuff that Jason aptly criticizes here:

http://www.jasoncolavito.com/blog/scotty-roberts-on-eves-secret-reptilian-descendants

and here:

http://www.jasoncolavito.com/blog/scott-a-roberts-noah-was-racially-pure-not-righteous

You once asked whether it is "wacky to think that ancient alien contact may have had something to do with the buildings of our mythologies or with possibly the DNA of human beings?"

Anyone who doesn't answer emphatically in the affirmative and threats the question as anything other than rhetorical, is a nutjob. (Or dishonest - the choice is yours.) I call your work drivel due to its lack of originality and abysmal literary quality. Anyone reading your posts on this blog should be able to understand by evaluation.

Scotty Roberts link

12/12/2014 06:42:20 am

The only problem you have in citing Jason's previous blogs about my books, are that they are incredibly flawed and almost completely inaccurate.

Just the title alone of one of the links you cited, "Scotty Roberts on Eve's Secret Reptilian Descendants," is completely inaccurate, having absolutely nothing to do with what I had written.

All you need do, EP, is actually "hail to my written material." Unless you prefer being mistaken for the sake of telling me how much I am "trying to sound smart."

You have now made statements stating that I am: 1) "trying to look smart;" 2) "attempting to be clever;" 3) "attempting to be academic."

The fact that you make comment in this way, demonstrates that there must be at least some recognition on your part that my comments contain at least a modicum of "smart, clever and academic." Otherwise you would not recognize the comparison.

I don't think you have any idea what, in my work, may or may not be "original." The fact that you rely so heavily on Jason's error-laden, bias-driven, deliberately ,uninformed commentary as your source material belies an incredible lack of desire on your part to be objectively informed before throwing out criticism.

And how one dialogs with anonymous critics in a social networking blog thread is hardly applicable when critiquing one's literary writing skills.

12/12/2014 03:43:22 pm

I invite the readers of this blog to make their own assessment of Jason's posts linked in my post above.

"The fact that you make comment in this way, demonstrates that there must be at least some recognition on your part that my comments contain at least a modicum of "smart, clever and academic." Otherwise you would not recognize the comparison."

Your every word is oozing with effort to come up with some clever rejoinder, and this is the best you could manage? Sad... Anyway, I "recognize the comparison" because I am widely read and have come across many intelligent texts. Yours are certainly not among them. The quote above is a perfect example of your lack of intelligence.

"And how one dialogs with anonymous critics in a social networking blog thread is hardly applicable when critiquing one's literary writing skills."

It is, once we adjust our standards. Which is what I'm doning. So unless you're saying that you're purposefully making yourself sound even worse than you do in your books...

Scotty Roberts link

12/12/2014 11:10:38 pm

EP SAID:it
"Your every word is oozing with effort to come up with some clever rejoinder..."

Weak and feeble. You are not as "well read" as you say you are, if that is your interpretation. Your "adjusted standard" is, "Anonymous." Put you name behind your standard, and you might start demonstrating that your words bear any real depth.

Rather than simply challenge people to read Jason's other posts, you should challenge them to ask whether or not those posts are accurate, prior to promoting them.

12/13/2014 08:23:20 am

Don't tell me what to do.

Also, name needn't help demonstrate depth of one's words. Your name certainly doesn't.

Given that you consider yourself and your hetero life mate "Dr." Ward academics, your opinion of my erudition isn't going to interest anyone.

Now, please tell us your answer to the question of whether it is "wacky to think that ancient alien contact may have had something to do with the buildings of our mythologies or with possibly the DNA of human beings".

Scotty Roberts link

12/16/2014 04:08:39 am

I didn;t say that applying a name to words reflects "depth." I said that applying a name to criticism demonstrates power of conviction.

Anyone can criticize from the veil of anonymity.

ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION:
I do not think alien DNA had anything to do with mankind's ability to do anything. I, frankly, do not adhere nor support the ancient alien notion. But I do report on it and include it in an examination of varied theories.

12/17/2014 02:12:12 pm

And you also think that Biblical serpent-fucking is a theory that deserves respectful consideration, right?...

(And I'm happy to repeat what I said about "conviction". You posting under your real name does not make your evasive, self-serving remarks appear any more genuine than they would have otherwise...)

Scotty Roberts link

12/12/2014 06:44:14 am

Oh... and if it wasn't clear above, I have never written a single word about Eve having "reptilian descendants."

InquisitorX

12/13/2014 01:54:52 am

Caught you lying again. In an interview you said this:

Q: You mention the Serpent bloodline / Serpent seed doctrine heavily when it comes to humanity. Could you go into this with us a bit origins wise?

Scott Alan Roberts: The Serpent Seed, Dual Seed or Two-Seedline is a controversial - even heretical - doctrine according to which the serpent in the Garden of Eden, Nachash, mated with Eve, and the offspring of their sexual union was Cain, thereby bequeathing a bloodline that threads throughout humanity. Bingo. There it is. The connection to reptilians is made.

http://www.examiner.com/article/scott-alan-roberts-on-the-secret-history-of-the-reptilians

You promote that Dual Seed theology of the Christian Identity Racists both there and elsewhere, and from your own pen you draw the conclusion of reptilian connection to the descendants of Eve.

You know mate, if you're gonna lie you might want to keep in mind what you've said elsewhere on the internet.

Ok..now we can sit back and watch another attempt at cleaning this up. lmao

InquisitorX

12/13/2014 01:58:55 am

You also wrote this on page 155 of your Reptilian book:

"The Serpent Seed Doctrine should rightfully have the word Doctrine removed from the title, for it is nothing more than a statement of fact as substantiated within the textual passage where we find the interaction between the Serpent, Nachash, and Eve, the wife of Adam. Moreover, the Reptilian race that interacts with humanity is beginning to look more and more as if it is less a host of alien invaders, but rather a linkage, both physically and metaphysically, to the bloodline of the Serpent."

Scotty Roberts link

12/13/2014 03:28:30 am

InquisitorX,
I was wondering when you'd raise your head, again. Why you are so concerned with attempting to catch me in a lie of some sort should have people wondering about your motivations.

In context to the quote you posted, this is the preceding paragraph on page 155...

So what was the purpose of this little foray into the Serpent Seed Doctrine? It was to establish that the doctrine is not heretical to church teachings, for it simply does not refer to Satan as the entity of the Genesis passages. More than anything, it establishes that the Serpent in the Garden of Eden was completely unique from the biblical references to Lucifer, Satan or the Devil – and even those references are obscure in the Hebrew, extrapolated and forced into meaning by the teachings of the Christian church. "

Then, in the paragraph following the quote you posted...

"The doctrinal belief of the Serpent Seed is still held by some adherents of Christian Identity, a label applied to a wide variety of loosely affiliated believers and churches with a white supremacist theology. Most promote a racist interpretation of Christianity, claiming that the Jews, as descendants of Cain, are also descended from the serpent. This is a belief that has surface throughout history, and was adhered to by none other than one Adolph Hitler."

Those are the closing paragraphs leading to the following chapter.

In the book's Afterword, I make these statements (page 204, para.3)...

"Did a race of Reptilians come to this planet, long ago? Did extraterrestrials seed the human race or genetically engineer primordial hominids, creating a slave race? Were humans freed from bondage, led by a traitor from the ranks of the alien oppressors? Is there an extraterrestrial race that has sifted in and out of humanity’s affairs for all of recorded history, governing our destiny from the shadows? Or, are we a race that simply evolves and grows, learning from the past and moving beyond our old superstitions and mythologies. Are we bound by religious thought and man-made myth, only to suffer at its invisible grasp until we move beyond the need for false messiahs and imagined gods, spirits, devils and monsters that subjugate us to our own fears? Or is it truly that we are the creation of a one, true God and all the rest is simply the concocted, fabricated veil of lies and deceit, obfuscation and illusion that enslaves us to the dictates of the demonic evil that would stand in the way of our knowing that God in a more real, meaningful way?

"These are the questions that I sincerely hope you are left pondering when closing the cover of this book for he last time."

Scotty Roberts link

12/13/2014 03:41:04 am

InquistorX said:
"Ok..now we can sit back and watch another attempt at cleaning this up. lmao"

Your perceptions are really skewed, "mate."

Scotty Roberts link

12/13/2014 03:44:09 am

InquisitorX,
If you haven't yet figured it out, the book is about an examination of mythology, and one that ultimately leaves the entire Genesis story in that category.

What you take great glee in pointing as lies, are - contextually - part of the process of examining many facets of the story.

Now, sit back and laugh. You're still an anonymous idiot.

12/13/2014 08:25:35 am

Jason, I hope you're still paying attention to this thread, if only to collect Scotty Roberts's juiciest responses :)

InquisitorX

12/14/2014 04:46:11 am

None of what he posted as a response changes the context of his comments I mentioned at all. lol

This just keeps getting better.

12/14/2014 07:45:37 am

Sizzle reel? More like fizzle reel.

Scotty Roberts link

12/16/2014 04:10:01 am

EP,
I respect your right to have an opinion. Its not your cup o' tea, and that's ok.

Only Me

12/14/2014 08:34:56 am

Mr. Roberts, if I might impose once more, I think I see where the problem between yourself and InquisitorX lies.

You said, "If you haven't yet figured it out, the book is about an examination of mythology, and one that ultimately leaves the entire Genesis story in that category." If that was your intent, I feel you may have undermined it, even if unintentionally.

Your afterword contains the following open-ended questions:

[ Did a race of Reptilians come to this planet, long ago? Did extraterrestrials seed the human race or genetically engineer primordial hominids, creating a slave race? Were humans freed from bondage, led by a traitor from the ranks of the alien oppressors? Is there an extraterrestrial race that has sifted in and out of humanity’s affairs for all of recorded history, governing our destiny from the shadows? ]

Therein lies the problem. If you have any experience with the ancient astronaut theory crowd, you'd know they would see this excerpt as an endorsement of their "theory". They would, in turn, use your book as "expert testimony" to further their argument that AAT is undeniable. Obviously, you stated that wasn't your intent, but telling those who read your book the above questions are among the ones you hope they are left "pondering when closing the cover of this book for the last time" does a disservice to the time and effort you invested, in my opinion.

12/14/2014 10:24:56 am

Have we forgotten that Scotty Roberts is a professional fringe MC? I mean, come on, charity is nice and everything, but there is a limit here. Just because at this stage in his career Scotty Roberts wants to move away from the nutjobs he's used to herding around at his symposium, we don't have to pretend he never purported to take these nutjobs seriously!

Only Me

12/14/2014 10:55:19 am

Sorry, man. I've never read any of his books, so I can only go on what he says or sees fit to share. And I've read Jason's articles, same as you and InquisitorX.

So far, he's been civil to me, so...

12/14/2014 11:43:09 am

Oh, I'm not saying you shouldn't be civil! Just that going too far helps Scotty Roberts whitewash his resume to make him more palatable to TV execs...

But hey, maybe another shitty pseudo-archaeological show wouldn't be so bad... :)

InquisitorX

12/14/2014 01:47:44 pm

" Just because at this stage in his career Scotty Roberts wants to move away from the nutjobs he's used to herding around at his symposium, we don't have to pretend he never purported to take these nutjobs seriously!"

You nailed it. This is an effort at self rehabilitation. Problem is all his crazy shite is all over the internet and isn't going away.

Scotty Roberts link

12/15/2014 07:01:50 am

EP,
Please point out to me how I have "white washed" my resume for TV execs.

In our written proposal and phone conversations with execs, we have been very forthright about both of our lack of institutional credentials.

Is your criticism solely from a credentials standpoint? If so, its an empty waste of time. As I have stated here, Ward's and my credentials have never been held in secret nor obfuscated, and are public knowledge.

You are simply a newcomer, rehashing old news. What, precisely, is your axe to grind... other than being ignorant of all the facts prior to criticizing?

Scotty Roberts link

12/16/2014 04:14:50 am

ONLY ME,
I can see where that statement, out of its context, could lead someone to think I support an AA notion. But the statement continues...

"...Is there an extraterrestrial race that has sifted in and out of humanity’s affairs for all of recorded history, governing our destiny from the shadows? Or, are we a race that simply evolves and grows, learning from the past and moving beyond our old superstitions and mythologies. Are we bound by religious thought and man-made myth, only to suffer at its invisible grasp until we move beyond the need for false messiahs and imagined gods, spirits, devils and monsters that subjugate us to our own fears? Or is it truly that we are the creation of a one, true God and all the rest is simply the concocted, fabricated veil of lies and deceit, obfuscation and illusion that enslaves us to the dictates of the demonic evil that would stand in the way of our knowing that God in a more real, meaningful way?

"These are the questions that I sincerely hope you are left pondering when closing the cover of this book for he last time."

12/16/2014 06:11:58 am

That's just it. The fact that you think (or at least suggest) that there is anything to "ponder" regarding ancient aliens and serpent-fucking is the problem.

Only Me

12/16/2014 06:06:18 pm

Not how I would have said it, EP, but that was my point. Apparently, I didn't convey it as clearly as I'd hoped.

InquisitorX

12/14/2014 11:36:05 pm

This also brings something else to mind here. Scott Roberts claimed earlier in this thread that his dual bloodline theory had nothing to do with Christian Identity racism and no connection to it. Then he quotes his own book saying it does. So he lied here, told the truth in his book, and even though he knows the connections he STILL promotes it in interviews all over the internet.

More lies exposed.

Keep talking, mate. Love the web of lies unraveling.

Scotty Roberts link

12/15/2014 06:55:06 am

There is more on that topic in the book than that brief paragraph, InquisitorX.

Note the context of my statements and how I make the case that the Christian Identity movement has adulterated the mythology to serve their own white supremacist leanings.

Much the way you do here.

12/15/2014 07:02:00 am

To any TV producers reading this: Before getting in the Scotty Roberts business, make sure you read his books about Biblical mythology of serpent-fucking and racial purity.

InquisitorX

12/15/2014 08:29:41 am

Not to mention the Nazi and racist connections of both Scott Roberts and John Ward.

Scotty Roberts link

12/15/2014 03:52:34 pm

My God, man!! You've exposed us!!

Scotty Roberts link

12/15/2014 03:57:15 pm

To any TV producers reading this: Thanks for already having warned me about idiots like EP and InquisitorX.

InquisitorX

12/15/2014 11:31:39 pm

Thus speaks the guy who's best mate uses Nazi symbolism on his logo, and who personally and knowingly promotes a racist mythology. If you ever do make it to tv you can bet B'nai B'rith, the Jewish Defense League and the SPLC will be all over the network, ensuring it won't be on telly for very long.

Scotty Roberts link

12/16/2014 02:07:17 am

Do I "promote" racist mythology by researching and examining it? Wow... there must be a helluva lot of unwitting racist researchers out there, by your judgment.

At least you have something to take a stand on, InquisitorX. God knows the B'nai B'rith, SPLC and JDL all have the power of conviction to put their name to their convictions.

You're still an anonymous idiot.

InquisitorX

12/16/2014 03:07:15 am

You'll find "anonymous idiots" are very adept at organizing a successful boycott, should you and your Nazi friend ever make it to telly. So keep bumping your gums,mate. Any network that picks you up will drop you like a hot rock. You'll see.

Scotty Roberts link

12/16/2014 03:46:45 am

Ba-da-bing, ba-da-boom.

12/16/2014 06:13:35 am

Can we make this thread the #1 Google result for "Scotty Roberts"? Stay tuned!

Scotty Roberts link

12/16/2014 08:02:52 am

One thing I have noticed in these sorts of settings: you are criticized for not answering questions, then criticized if you do. And even more highly criticized if you make the time and effort to respond to everything presented.

The nature of this sort of blog and mode of criticism is to allow for anonymous attacks and critics to sport their wares. Its not, generally speaking, meant to provide for open dialog and debate.

(If I am wrong, Jason, I challenge you to make all commentators on your blogs required to sign in with a real name, email and IP address. Just as I have done. No fear, my friend.)

I do appreciate the fact that you all feel Ward and I are so amazingly important that you have expended so much time debating, criticizing, researching, quoting and attacking. I do appreciate the civil exchanges, and have even enjoyed the not-so-civil, as it has made for another fun foray into the silliness of dialoguing with people who have granted themselves absolute liberty from accountability.

As for where this thread stands, there is not much more to be said that hasn't already been said. Anonymous critics will continue to cast dispersions no matter the response. If one is afraid to put his real name to his public criticisms, there is very little left other than to assume that they do not wish to be taken to task, personally, for their words. I’ll say it again, the willingness to put your name to your words, reveals the level and power of your conviction. Conversely, criticizing from the cover of anonymity demonstrates a fear of being held accountable for what you say.

We’ve hit all the bases, and rounded them several times, and without meaningful dialog, there isn;t much more to accomplish. Its time to stop spinning our wheels and wasting our time. If anyone wants to communicate with me on a personal basis, you know how to get hold of me.

So, it is with a heavy heart, that I say, “so long, and thanks for all the fish.”

Cheers!
Scotty

p.s. InquisitorX, my conversation with the Jews in my family, Jewish friends and even the B’nai B’rith regarding Ward’s and my status as “anti-semites” or “neo-Nazis,” has provoked nothing but rolling eyes and statements such as, “Whoever said that obviously does not know you, and has not done their research on you two.” Keep the faith, buddy.

InquisitorX

12/16/2014 12:33:14 pm

Sorry, but I have to consider your laughable claim that your "Jewish" step-relatives exist, or that any Jew who knows the roots of the shite you promote, or would excuse your Nazi mate's use of the SS ring on his logo as cheeky fun, is straight out bullshit.

You invoke these Jewish step relatives as a means of absolving yourself of the facts. It isn't working, arsehole. Like I said if you and your fellow racist make it to telly you won't be there long, there will be such a shit storm from we REAL JEWS, and others that your network will run like hell from you two.

Laughing My Butt Off

12/28/2014 12:51:54 pm

The swindle just keeps on going.

https://www.facebook.com/historytrippers?fref=nf&pnref=story

Laughing My Butt Off

12/30/2014 04:22:38 am

Looks like the Nazi SS symbol using Dr. John Ward and his Nephilim racial theorist pal Scotty Roberts have a YouTube channel now.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCebzUHPKLGdVyubxGpXn5eQ

Scotty Roberts link

12/30/2014 05:07:45 am

Are you idiots, or do you simply pretend you are idiots, posting from the anonymous sidelines...?

If you want a substantive dialog, why not contact me directly... or would that mean you'd have to be accountable for yourself? Too close for comfort?

Again, I contend that hurling charges from the anonymous sidelines takes little courage and even less accountability. Makes it easy to be an idiot.

InquisitorX

12/30/2014 06:56:23 am

If the swastika fits...and it does.

Scotty Roberts link

12/30/2014 12:11:17 pm

InquisitorX,
You are now relieved of your attempt to goad.

As I told you several weeks ago... you are welcome to call me on my phone (which I gave to you) or write me via email or dialog with me in open, public forum on my FaceBook page. Of course, you won't do that. You'd then have to be accountable for your words.

Anything else you have to say, here, is an obvious attempt on your part to provoke reaction from the sanctity of anonymity. Very sociopathic.

You know where to contact me.

InquisitorX

12/30/2014 01:17:53 pm

Transparent. You want me to come there so you can control the flow of conversation and your friends can jump in, babbling incoherently in your favour. Not taking the bait, mate.

Right here where neither of us controls the conversation is fine. Nobody's name changes in any way the evidences presented at this website against you and your cohort. Stop whining and man up, as they say.

Scotty Roberts link

12/30/2014 02:18:02 pm

I offered a private conversation long before I offered an option for you to come into an open social forum.

You are afraid of accountability. Nothing more.

I wear my big boy pants and can handle scrutiny without retreating to some dark corner. You, however, need to coddle your particular brand of sociopathology in private.

Of course you are satisfied here. You can be as mephitic as you wish before flitting off into your anonysphere.

InquisitorX

12/30/2014 04:45:28 pm

still..it beats you and your cohorts brand of sociopathological behaviour- Nazism and Nephilim, serpent fucking racial theories and all.

Glass houses, my racial theorist friend.

Scotty Roberts link

12/30/2014 05:01:38 pm

"Talk sense to a fool and he calls you foolish."
~ Euripides

InquisitorX

12/31/2014 02:38:47 am

"The grand sin that was committed in Eden was not mere disobedience in the eating of a forbidden piece of fruit from a forbidden tree in the midst of the garden. It was a sexual sin that created a dual bloodline in the twins conceived in Eve’s womb. According to the subsequent passages in Genesis, we learn that Abel was the blood seed of Adam, but that Cain was the blood seed of the serpent., and that the lineage would be in constant conflict with one another, starting with Cain murdering his twin brother."- Scotty Roberts, Cain and the Other People

"Racism springs from the lie that certain human beings are less than fully human."- Alveda King

Again, if the swastika fits...and it does.

Scotty Roberts link

12/31/2014 06:41:39 am

So, InquisitorX, you are saying that in an examination of religious mythology, that certain stories which state that some humans were actually demigods is "racist?"

I guess you also decry anyone who has written about the Gods of Olympus and Hercules, as well.

You really have no idea what you are talking about, and once again, your claims are flaccid.

Scotty Roberts link

12/31/2014 06:43:18 am

And it is really sad that you use a quote of Alveda King's in any sort of context to an examination of religious mythology.

InquisitorX

12/31/2014 07:42:44 am

The quote is most fitting when you consider that you don't just examine "religious mythology', but you literally promote Christian Identity theology.

You can keep coming here and boo-hooing and try to clean it up, but your racist theories are all over the net for everyone to see. You know you took your blasted ideas from racist sources too. Getting caught wasn't what you expected I imagine.

Everyone who examines you and your cohorts internet "footprint" can deduce the facts.

"Dr." John Ward- not a doctor of anything, not an archaeologist, just a scuba diver who fancies Nazism, used the SS ring as his original logo, and YOU promoting the Christian Identity Serpent Seed theology...give up the ghost moron. You've both been caught by your own words.

You even published an article on how wonderful the swastika is in your e-zine.

If it looks like racism, talks like racism...its racism.

Scotty Roberts link

12/31/2014 08:07:25 am

If your interpretation of my actions here is "boo-hooing," then it becomes crystal clear how you have misinterpreted everything else so dramatically.

Your "getting caught" and "promoting Christian Identity" scenarios are void of any substance.

Regarding Nigel Pennick's, "The Book of Primal Signs: The High Magic of Symbols," focusing on ancient symbolism... the article his publisher, Inner Traditions, gave us for Intrepid Mag was on the ancient symbol of the swastika, one of the most adulterated, maligned ancient symbols, thanks to the Third Reich. He wrote about what the ancient symbol actually meant when it was incorporated in the medieval Catholic Church and more ancient usages. His is hardly a promotion of the swastika that you focus on at the core of your bloviating, here.

And you're still just an anonymous idiot, and I call you on your bullshit.

Scotty Roberts link

12/31/2014 08:13:11 am

InquisitorX,
Regarding your catterwaul of "Naziism," I call Godwin's Law on you.

Its inappropriate hyperbolic comparison. "Although deliberately framed as if it were a law of nature or of mathematics, its purpose has always been rhetorical and pedagogical: I wanted folks who glibly compared someone else to Hitler or to Nazis to think a bit harder about the Holocaust." ~ Godwin

InquisitorX

12/31/2014 09:10:41 am

I had family die in the Holocaust. Don't lecture me about it, Scotty "Christian Identity" Roberts. You can try whatever lame tactic you want, but your racial theory and your partners Nazi logo stand as factual damning evidence against you both. Like I said, if it looks like racism and sounds like racism- its racism. And you're both bloody well guilty as charged.

Tell us again how you're a historian and he's an archaeologist, even though neither of you has a damn degree in anything. lmao

Scotty Roberts link

12/31/2014 09:21:42 am

My grandfather and half of my extended family had family die in the Holocaust, too.

And you are still an anonymous idiot.

InquisitorX

12/31/2014 10:01:39 am

They aren't even blood relatives. The man was a distant step relative by your own words. Mine were my great grandparents, uncles and aunts.

And even at that you should be ashamed of your racial theories and the fact that your cohort blatantly used the Nazi SS ring as his logo. That's a fucking insult to anyone Jewish. For you to have distant (at best) step relatives who are Jewish and STILL say the shit you do and defend "Dr." John Ward is even more damning and shows just how little you give a shit in the face of making money from morons who buy into your racial theories.

Scotty Roberts link

1/1/2015 02:24:44 am

I have a distant Jewish side to my family via my mother's step-father, who I grew up with as my grandfather. He married my maternal grandmother and adopted my five-year-old mother and my uncle, giving them his last name of Gould. He and I were very close as I grew up, but the rest of the family on his side were distant in the sense that we only saw them on rare occasions.

We were "not blood," as was so important for you to point out, but unless you disregard and belittle adoption and the following 50+ years of his being the family patriarch. He was my grandfather, and I grew very close to him, and remained very close until his death in 1995.

You decry racism on one hand, and dismiss the bond of adoption on the other. You are a conflicted man, and your arguments are obviously built around finding ways to solidify your accusations, your ignorance notwithstanding.

On the matter of anonymous accusations:
In both our systems of jurisprudence, there is a thing known as the "right to face your accuser." In this case, you are too cowardly to show your face in front of mine and make your vacuous charges, based on superficial information.

All you have the ability to do is cast ignorant invective from the shadowy sidelines, and attempt to call others to action - which sounds an awful lot like what the Nazis did.

In accordance with your vapid, faceless accusations, perhaps you are closer to a Nazi philosophy than anything you catterwaul about regarding Ward or me. All we do is examine it and write about it... you live it.

InquisitorX

1/1/2015 03:56:26 am

Gotcha. Using the SS Nazi ring as your business partners logo is just "examining it", spreading the Christian Identity racist theology as if it were fact (and you have repeatedly) is just "examining it", lying about your cohorts Nazi logo claiming it was put there without his knowledge (for how many years?), and then admitting here that he used it willfully is just "examining it", being a devotee of "esoteric Nazism" as "Dr." John Ward's profile shows is just "examining it", and your repeated use of racist Christian Identity theology to provide yourself with a niche in the world of fringe (read "insane") thinkers from where you make a paycheck is just "examining it".

You pull out your Jewish step relative only when the cumulative facts of your racial theory, racist connections and literal Nazi symbolism comes to light (as Bystander noted accurately) only to deflect and absolve yourself of the potential loss of income and tv fame resulting from these facts becoming widely known.

You have no shame and I honestly doubt you would know ethics if they slapped you in your mouth. And yet you want to lecture others? lmao

Anything to get what you want.

Scotty Roberts link

1/1/2015 04:22:04 am

InquisitorX,
You can continue to make the charges all you'd like. Being one who examines the symbolism does not make one a sympathizer.

My "continued, repeated" use of Christian Identity theory (as you put it) is simply false, having only written about it as it related to the examination of "Reptilian mythos" and why people believe stupid things. I have written far more about my staunch support of Israel than I have the historical examination of the Serpent Seed doctrine.

And if you examined my "footprint," as you said you have, you'd find a helluva lot more about me than that one piece of work.

As for "pulling out" my Jewish relatives, it was in response to you calling me an anti-semite, not as a deflection. Are you really that stupid?

As for ethics, you are void of them in your anonymity. Of course you are good at pointing fingers from the sidelines - an ethical quagmire all its own.

"Making a paycheck?" We all do that. So what.

You can hold to any theory about me and Ward that you wish. That does not make your assessment accurate. Perhaps you would so well to research your topic a little better.

InquisitorX

1/1/2015 06:51:31 am

The evidence speaks for itself.

Your business partner used the Nazi SS ring as his logo, you lied saying he didn't, then admitted in this thread he did, and you promote Christian Identity racism as fact- not mere myth. I've taken the time to listen to your interviews. You present the racist serpent seed theology as if it was fact, not myth. You can play the obfuscation game all damn day long, but anyone who looks into you and "Dr." John Ward, and reads the info about you two on this website will see the clear Nazi symbolism, the clear connections to Christian Identity, and how easily you lie to cover up whatever you can. And keep posting here. It will eventually propel this thread into the top of the Google list for your name.

Scotty Roberts link

1/1/2015 06:59:08 am

Despite continuing to insist on your mistaken interpretations, at least you have found some purpose.

People know better.

Keep having fun with it.

Scotty Roberts link

1/2/2015 01:44:47 am

Hey, InquisitorX... I checked Google. It made it to page five on a name search.

Keep posting stupid shit, and I may keep responding for the purpose of pointing out your stupid shit.

We can make it to page #1 on Google if we work really hard at it.

InquisitorX

1/2/2015 06:36:21 am

Type in Scotty Roberts, John Ward, racism

That's a whole new thing there, mate.

And the only "stupid shit" here are the quotes from your racist Christian Identity Theology and your cohort "Dr." John Ward's Nazi logo.

Well..that and your sizzle reel. lol

Scott Roberts link

1/2/2015 08:12:37 am

Calovito and Fr. Ashcraft appear the list, but that's about it.

Bystander

12/31/2014 10:18:27 am

Observation: Roberts seeks to make mileage from a distant step relative, while at the same instant spreading a theology that clearly has direction connection to extremist racist groups, and defending his business partner who, though Roberts initially denied his business partner had any knowledge of said Nazi logo, admitted in this thread that he did use it knowingly.

As Inquisitor X put it (rather crudely), Mr. Roberts- you certainly demonstrate a complete disregard for those Jewish step-relatives you wish to use to absolve yourself of guilt.

Scotty Roberts link

1/1/2015 02:47:03 am

Bystander,
I think you've mixed up a few facts somewhere along the way.

And, may I ask, In your research of my work, what have you found that demonstrates a complete disregard of my Jewish step-relatives (and my grandfather was never distant)? And of what "guilt" is it you think that I am looking for absolution...?

What I have written about in an examination of religious mythology, differs greatly on several major points from Christian Identity Doctrine, and I have spelled out the vast differences, which seem to get ignored in many previous posts. But I’dlike to ask you on what points have you found comparison?

Finally, I do not promote any brand of theology, but I do research and write about it.

The book that continues to be references here, is one I wrote that was supposed to examine the whole reptilian alien mythos. In that book I wrote about ancient Mesopotamian religious mythology, as well as Canaanite, Egyptian and Hebrew. The so-called "serpent seed doctrine," which I examined in the book, was a theory held to by Rabbinic scholars, Gnostics and the Church down through the ages, but not all of them believed the same things. The Christian Identity Movement twisted it into white supremacy. I never wrote that I adhered to any of the different theories, but I examined the biblical text from a linguistic point-of-view.

When I wrote of what the linguistics of Genesis actually tell us, it is not the same conclusion as Christian Identity. So the claim that I adhere to some racial point-of-view is simply void of substance, and is appointing a personal theology to my examination of a religious myth.

Finally, you can examine a religious mythology and its many different versions without adhering to any of them on a theological or practical basis. If I said there were five different theories of God, and wrote about them all, could you accuse me of adhering to the most heinous version as my personal theology? Would I be promoting any by examining them all? Would I even be tacitly admitting to believing, personally, in any of them simply by writing about them?

I think InquisitorX makes much ado about nothing. And he still hasn't told me if he decries anyone who writes about the Olympians and the demigod Hercules. After all, he told me that anyone who writes about “humans not being fully human,” are racists. Of course, he keeps forgetting that we are writing about mythology, not history.

I would;t make the mistake of throwing your hat into such a dubious ring as his.

InquisitorX

1/2/2015 06:38:10 am

For late comers.

Scotty Roberts says Noah was "racially pure".

http://www.jasoncolavito.com/blog/scott-a-roberts-noah-was-racially-pure-not-righteous

Scotty Roberts link

1/2/2015 07:30:35 am

For late comers, InquisitorX is very good at omitting facts in order to attempt to strengthen his crusade.

For the record, InquisitorX is an anonymous buffoon, casting dispersions and attacks from the safety of his anonymity. He has no power of conviction, nor is he able to hold a dialog without hiding, for fear of having to be held accountable for his words.

Accusations are a dime a dozen. People who need to hide their identities while doing it should be held in very low esteem.

I would trust that anyone with half a brain would simply ask for details. I am available at my FaceBook page and by phone.

Scotty Roberts link

1/2/2015 03:52:36 pm

InquisitorX,
Let's just revisit this one more time, since you brought it up, again...

By "racially pure," my meaning has been spelled out many, many times in my written work, my interviews and here on this blog. You simply choose to ignore what I have actually written and said, preferring and defaulting only to that which you want people to think.

"Racially pure," meant "100% human DNA/full-blooded human," in accordance with the Genesis text.

Did not the Israelite line, the Jewish people, descend from Noah? Does not the Hebrew scripture state that all peoples of the earth descended from Noah, and that all other people on the planet - including the line of Cain - perished at the Great Deluge?

It does.

In stark contrast to the scriptural account, Christian Identity Theology states that the Jews descended from the line of Cain. According to the scriptural account, the line of Cain was fathered by one of the Elohim, “Nachash” (the name used for the serpent in the Genesis account), who impregnated Eve. It was this coupling that bequeathed Cain, whose descendants eventually and effectively were completely eradicated at the Flood - in accordance with the Religious story contained in the Hebrew scriptures. You should really re-read Genesis chapter three, which is even clearer in Hebrew.

A cornerstone of Christian Identity Theology has Cain as the forebear of the Jewish people, not in alignment with Hebrew scripture, but to bolster their white supremacist claims. But one would have to completely ignore the text of the Hebrew scripture to come to that conclusion, because Cain’s line ended at the Flood. How could Cain have fathered the Jews when his line became extinct at the Flood of Noah?

The Hebrew scripture clearly states that Adam and Eve - both “racially pure humans” - fathered their third son, Seth, whose descendants bequeathed Noah, whose son Shem then went on to father the Semitic peoples - including the Israelites/Jews.

Of course, this discussion is predicated on an examination of Hebrew religious mythology and Jewish religious texts. And in accordance with what is stated in the Hebrew scripture, Noah fathered the Semitic line, leading to Abraham, who fathered Jacob, the head of the Israelite clan.

And, as we all know, Judaism as a Religion did not exist until it was codified by Moses - who was also an Israelite of the line of Seth. Not Cain. According to the Hebrew scripture.

So, when you say I am promoting Christian Identity Theology, you are flatly and unequivocally wrong.

You say you are Jewish… why don’t you know these things?? Did you ever go to Synagogue? Have you ever spoken to a Rabbi about this topic?

By referring to me as a promoter of Christian Identity Theology, you put your complete and utter ignorance on public display. Its no wonder you don’t want people knowing who you really are. Your Jewish relatives would slap you silly.

Of course, we have to put the entire thing into the context of Religious Mythology. None of us was there, and none of knows what really happened. But if you are a Jew who abides by Hebrew scripture and Talmudic teaching, you cannot deny that Noah was a “pure human,” in accordance with the Hebrew scripture - or as I stated it in my review of the movie “Noah”, “racially pure.”

And I find it completely humorous - or sad, whichever way one wants to view it - that the foundation of all of this was a movie review that I wrote. Jason Colavito and you have hinged your entire arguments on select quotes and incomplete information, with a purpose to mislead the readers, here.

You both need to do your homework.

It is my contention that you are simply someone who takes great glee in attempting to create fracture and instigate attack. And the fact that you do it from a place of anonymity is very telling as to your motive.

InquisitorX

1/2/2015 06:40:17 am

Scotty Roberts' business partner, "Dr." John Ward used Nazi SS Totenkopf ring as his logo:

http://www.jasoncolavito.com/blog/fringe-history-and-the-survival-of-esoteric-nazism

InquisitorX

1/2/2015 06:42:27 am

More on the "Dr." John Ward saga:

http://www.trueexorcist.com/2014/09/confirmed-by-vatican-not-so-fast.html

Scotty Roberts link

1/2/2015 09:40:09 am

Is John Ward REALLY a a "saga," now...? Sounds epic.

"Saga - a long story of heroic achievement, especially a medieval prose narrative in Old Norse or Old Icelandic."

I thought it was a rather simple story. You plucked already well-known facts and reproduced them here for the purpose of laying accusation.

You are working VERY hard. What is it YOU do again? Where do YOU live? What is YOUR occupation?

See, your anonymity gives you carte blanche to act however you;d like without fear of being held accountable foe your words.

I still think you are nothing more than another creeping, anonymous internet "troll," who lives to accuse, but cannot withstand th scrutiny of being known.

InquisitorX

1/2/2015 06:46:39 am

Oh and look. It appears Scotty Roberts has had some claims of not paying up leveled against him.

Erich von Daniken says, "Roberts Didn't Pay Me!"

http://www.jasoncolavito.com/blog/giorgio-tsoukalos-i-believe-in-reincarnation-pantheism-erich-von-daniken-scotty-roberts-didnt-pay-me

Scotty Roberts link

1/2/2015 07:32:42 am

I see you are a master of presenting one-sided information. I think people are going to start wondering about your motivations.

Scotty Roberts link

1/2/2015 07:43:45 am

Here is another Press Release on the Erich von Daniken issue...

http://paradigmsymposium.com/PS2014POSTPressRelease.pdf

Jason Colavito link

1/3/2015 12:00:09 am

I do not have the time or the resources to monitor 5 years' worth of blog posts for new comments. Since this conversation has gotten out of hand and is simply repeating attacks over and over again, I am closing this blog post to new comments.

Comments are closed.

Scott Roberts and John Ward Offer Sizzle Reel for New Fringe History Show

Author

Newsletters

Categories

Terms & Conditions

Archives