Scott Wolter Backs Out of "Forbidden Archaeology" Course, Blames Me for Existing

7/21/2016

Before we begin today, I’d like to point you to Laura Saetveit Miles’s excellent essay in Vox criticizing Stephen Greenblatt after he won $735,000 from Norway for his work in the humanities. Miles believes that Greenblatt intentionally misrepresented the Middle Ages in his 2011 book The Swerve in order to glorify the Renaissance. While I don’t agree with everything Miles says—one would be hard pressed to argue that the Middle Ages did not represent a decline of some kind from the Classical period—the piece is a fascinating discussion of how the way we discuss history is shaped by more than evidence.

This make a rather apropos transition to my topic for today. Many of you will likely have already seen the brouhaha that arose yesterday on Andy White’s blog after erstwhile America Unearthed host Scott Wolter announced that he withdrew from White’s upcoming course in “Forbidden Archaeology” because he had lost interest in participating. It later came out that Wolter was under the mistaken impression that White was planning to ambush him into having a live debate with me at a joint appearance. This was never true, and White had invited me to appear at a different time to discuss a completely different subject, the lost continent of Atlantis. But even that remove wasn’t enough for Wolter.

After White made the announcement on his blog, Wolter and his XpLrR business partner J. Hutton Pulitzer attempted to explain the decision by … well, blaming me. Wolter, on his blog, asserted that he did not want to be in any club that would have me as a member: “Any association with the debunker is an instant deal-killer that can only hurt one’s reputation in this arena by any kind of association,” he wrote, clearly unconcerned by his own “association” with former American Nazi leader and convicted pedophile Frank Joseph, with whom he car pooled to fringe history events, and with whom he is scheduled to appear at an upcoming event this fall. I, by this measure, am more horrifying than Nazis and child molesters.

Wolter’s comments, though, were decidedly staid compared to those of Pulitzer, who delivered a long and angry rant in comments left on White’s blog in which he accused White and me of engaging in a conspiracy to ambush and humiliate Wolter, which somehow involves computer servers:

Simpler put, seems you had a choice- Scott and his huge fan base and media base, or Colavito. You chose Colavito. Thus, the real story is Scott would not subject himself to the attack of a sci-fi writer who continually and abusively attacks Scott. It would be a volatile and contentious time to say the least and no one would benefit or learn. Thus, to your fans- Andy made the choice for Scott, not the other way around. As always facts matter and I am answering for me, my view and not Scott, I will leave that to him. But, as one always knows we (Scott and I) put out a significant information and education and one can expect an expanded KRS series very soon. BTW, us on the other-side of this history biz should have a working relationship with your side, but that cannot happen when it is attacked based and volatile. If it was polite and ethical than many could learn from each side, but as long as negative and attacking (or as long as your blog and servers are tied to Jason's rack space) then it is hard to achieve.

It's hard to know where to start, and it isn’t really worth parsing an egomaniac’s anger. The crack about computer servers seems to be Pulitzer’s misunderstanding of how the internet works. Remember, he isn’t just a fringe historian but also self-described as “one of the foremost inventors in modern times” and “one of the world’s leading technology innovators.” Anyway, Pulitzer, who uses Wordpress for his websites, seemed to think that because both White and I use Weebly (a Wordpress competitor) as our hosting service that we therefore are secretly operating our sites in coordination from a server farm located in my secret underground attack base.

After Pulitzer was informed that he had everything wrong, and that there was no ambush planned and that Wolter and I would not be appearing at the same time, Pulitzer doubled down:

The premise is simple. Scott will NOT participate if Colavito participates. That is the non starter. […] Scott should share the platform with peers not a sci fi writer blogger. […] Tone is everything. Using terms like fringe and pseudo scientist is a label in the most negative sense, a negative label and Scott's 31 years as a forensic scientists is not fringe nor pseudo. Maybe get an authentic panel trying to find common ground, versus a bait and attack approach? You are who you associate with and in this case you associate with Scott's number one intentional detractor.

You are who you associate with. Scott Wolter associates with Frank Joseph. Scott Wolter associates with convicted child rapist Niven Sinclair, with whom he appeared on Holy Grail in America, and who is in the same social circle as him, close friends with Wolter’s friends William F. Mann, Steve St. Clair, and Alan Butler. Does Pulitzer repudiate Wolter for his “association” with Nazis and child rapists? Of course not. He probably already has the excuses prepared for why those known associates don’t count.

The claim that Wolter can only be judged by his peers is the funniest of all. This is how I replied to Pulitzer:

Hutton, you and Scott need to have the courage of your convictions and speak to me directly if you have a problem with me. If you recall, I spoke directly with you by phone for several hours the last time you became upset with me. Had you done so, you would have learned that I am not participating in an event with Scott and was never asked to do so. I was asked to speak on a different day (in a different month, I believe) on a different topic, about Atlantis.

There is no debate that Andy was trying to secretly ambush Scott into having. Canceling on Andy, who was doing his best to fairly present multiple points of view, was ungentlemanly and to accuse him of a conspiracy is shameful. To declare that you wish Andy to censor particular viewpoints to favor your own simply proves that you lack the fortitude to face even the most cursory challenge.

You say that "tone is everything," and yet you devote so very much space in your answer to deriding me as a "sci-fi writer," despite my being no such thing. (I published a handful of short stories, most in 2011-2013, of which I was paid for, I believe, two, and all the fiction I've ever published would barely equal a week's blog posts.)

When you say Scott should "share the platform with peers," please do enlighten us on what his peer would be. I hold a bachelor's degree in anthropology, just as his only degree is a bachelor's in earth science. He self-published a few books, and I published several with serious publishers. He had a TV show, and I appeared on a cable TV show. He conducted geological research into fringe history, and I have produced a greater volume of historiographic research into fringe topics than virtually anyone in the field, including original translations, documentary research, etc.

Your petty insults detract from what Andy was hoping to do, and I am deeply sorry that your ignorance has cost him the opportunity to give his students the chance to hear directly from people on all sides of the issue.

The good news is that Pulitzer and Wolter have finally revealed what it will take to stop them. All I need to do is to get myself invited wherever they want to speak, and they will flee in terror. Perhaps I should also join the Freemasons, since Wolter would then have to immediately resign and avoid all Masonic conspiracies for the rest of his life.

92 Comments

Joe Scales

7/21/2016 11:35:05 am

I believe Wolter once basically defended his personal slights against others as appropriate when true. Well then, we can now add coward in addition to liar and fraud when truthfully describing him.

Only Me

7/21/2016 02:17:45 pm

I seriously don't understand how these two could make the assumptions they did. The last post I read about the event, Andy mentioned he was trying to fundraise so Wolter could attend with no out of pocket expense. On top of that, he was excited he might have Jason do the same thing in December.

Andy also made it known this event was something for his students and not open to the public. So where in the hell did W&P come up with this latest round of hysteria?!

7/21/2016 02:37:04 pm

Maybe they caught the spoilers I posted on Professor White's blog on how it would all go down:

"Wolter will open with the fallacy of false dilemma, telling the class that the KRS is either a hoax or it's authentic. Then he will offer proof by assertion that it is not a hoax because he compared it to some really old tomb stones on the other side of the country and Ohman was a swell guy who wouldn't perpetrate a hoax. So then he'll argue circularly that since it has to be as old as the tombstones, the best way of dating it is the inscription on the stone slab itself. Because then it is the genuine article, any question or fact that would run counter to such an assertion cannot possibly be true. So Wolter can cherry pick from only possibilities that make it genuine.

That'll take about two minutes... so then it's on with the Templars, Masons, etc. When it's all said and done, he'll make a blog post about it saying how he convinced numerous young minds to see things his way and will forever deny otherwise."

7/21/2016 03:34:02 pm

No offense, Joe, but I'm going to go with this excerpt from Carl Feagan's comment as the REAL reason:

"just assumed Colavito would be there flexing his biceps at Wolter from the VIP seats"

I'd pay good money to see the look on Wolter's face!

7/21/2016 03:42:11 pm

This just in:

Scott Wolter to lecture instead at Cluck U.

Hutton Pulitzer

7/21/2016 05:01:49 pm

Joe, how can you say such when you dont even post under your real name? Now thats laughable

scott smythe-hopkins link

7/21/2016 08:11:02 pm

Neither do you jackass. The difference is that Joe makes reasoned and intelligent posts while you, would be laughable if it wasn't for your predilection for scamming and conning the gullible.

7/22/2016 08:57:34 am

As a public service reminder, for those unfortunate individuals that sent money to Hutton Pulitzer/Jovan Philjaw for pre-orders of his Solomon's Secret and/or Commodus' Secret, did not receive the promised goods and made unfulfilled demands for full refunds, your best option would be to contact the vendor's local State Attorney's office and/or police precinct to file a criminal complaint for theft.

E.P. Grondine

7/21/2016 01:06:01 pm

Hi Jason -

Just to show you how nuts some of these folks are, they actually believe you are in Andy White's employ: that he finances you.

Clearly they have no idea of how little money there is in archaeology or history in the real world, but instead believe in a well financed conspiracy.

Time Machine

7/21/2016 01:21:27 pm

Lap it up

GEE

7/21/2016 01:24:45 pm

I am at a loss for words., I love your approach, and your class, Jason. Neither one of them are man enough to apologize, just on the pretense, that there was a misunderstanding.

Gunn link

7/21/2016 01:29:35 pm

"Life is a circle." - (Black Elk).

I don't think Andy will mind me sharing an email I sent to him last April, after a brief exchange of emails about his upcoming "Forbidden Archaeology" class. (I stumbled upon his blog last October, and told him about some of my recent discoveries.)

I'm hoping I may be able to succeed in Andy's upcoming class where Scott Wolter would have failed, miserably. I am an advocate of the KRS who believes it tells a simple and truthful message, and I don't believe that Wolter has solved the inscription with Masonic numbers. Rather, I believe he is growing cold and on the way out....

My email to Andy: Okay, Andy. I hope you revisit my website, because it has several links to articles I recently wrote for the Norwegian American Weekly. You will find information so esoteric you won't find it elsewhere, like my information on stonehole rocks, medieval waterways, and especially the Norse Code-stone, which I believe is concealing something made of metal, within a small cluster of medieval stonehole rocks. You can read all about it, and see some of my pleadings for academic involvement, in the comments section at the National Geographic site showing the new Viking "settlement" at Point Rosee:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/03/160331-viking-discovery-north-america-canada-archaeology/

It seems like your upcoming class is right on time, if not tardy. So far, academia, and media, too, has failed not only the KRS, but also my recent discovery of an actual medieval Norse Code-stone. I've done about everything I can to obtain a professional response to my discovery, to no avail. Minnesota has proven to be irresponsible (and dull) towards her history. Most people have no idea what history treasure abides here, despite the rich medieval Norse evidences all around us.

It seems as though certain specified archaeology is, indeed, forbidden up here where Norsemen traveled the waterways hundreds of years before Columbus ever set foot in a boat! Let me know if you have any questions about anything. Please be sure to look at the Code-stone presentation I put together. Let me know if you can think of a way to force an exploratory dig on the State of MN. Both modern technology (metal detector) and medieval coding show that something is buried near Appleton, MN, most likely associated with a medieval European land claim. I know, it sounds nuts...but at least I've taken the time to publicly show all the details of my find, in order to prove-out my expectations.

Thanks again for your interest in the subject.

- Bob

Gunn

7/21/2016 01:50:56 pm

Field trip, students? Andy? Jason?

A swearing to secrecy, and a peek up close....

lurkster

7/21/2016 01:41:52 pm

"Scott and his huge fan base and media base..."

Would that be the 3 people who contributed to the GoFundMe just shy of a hundred bucks?

Kal

7/21/2016 01:59:11 pm

This is a fascinating meltdown from Scott about nothing. He sure researches. You totally should not feed the trolls, Jason. But it would be fun to claim you would appear at all of his events to drive him out, because that would be in line with his wild conspiracy theory that somehow you are the center of the skeptical world. That is a bit creepy. It is also so not true. Your posts are just more direct and pointed than most, and that drives the fringies crazy.

They have, for instance, completely ignored my posts, un my anonymous cadre of aliases, from my secret server in the lizard camp under the Nephilim giant ruins at the top of the world.

You should join the Masons and the Minnesota museum that has the KRS so that Scotty has nothing to talk about, for fear somehow magically you might show up. No, best not to feed the trolls.

As a science fiction writer, fan, and fringe fan, I find this post both whimsical and disturbing. Really you are of no threat to them. They just want to blame someone.

Once or twice they even blamed me, and I was like, what? Do they have any idea who I am? Well I don't use my real name. For all they know I am some kind of alien, in that fictitious lizard compound.

Scott, Webly is like Wordpress. It's not private. It's a public server, like google chrome, or any other free to pay sites. You usually can get Wordpress for free, and yet it looks like Scott is paying for his.

Why does he care if there are skeptics? It's weird. The skeptics ironically have brought people to watch his AU channel show. I for one would have never known about him if he hadn't been on cable.

All fringies must have secret knowledge and as soon as they do not, and are called out as snake oil peddlers, it's on.

Scott had a perfectly good job being a cable talking head, well such as it was, and did not need to invite the far flung to his parties.

And it is probably too expensive to attend his parties, both socially and price wise. You would be risking your life going to them. Who knows that those obsessed fringies would do.

Jason is not the only skeptic. Plenty of them post here and elsewhere.

Yeah but I will totally be at their meetings, in the guise (costume) of a middle aged balding bespectacled theology professor.

7/21/2016 02:28:18 pm

"Scott had a perfectly good job being a cable talking head, well such as it was, and did not need to invite the far flung to his parties."

In my view, Wolter had a perfectly good job analyzing building materials before he took the high dive into the fringe with his evolving KRS narrative. That he's left with only the likes of Pulitzer/Philjaw is because anyone with any shred of credibility learned long ago that he is poison to the well of knowledge. Weiblen, Nielsen, Löfvendahl, Williams... they all learned the hard way after initially giving Wolter the benefit of the doubt.

Wolter burns bridges and is left on the sinking slab of eventual obscurity.

DaveR

7/21/2016 02:33:21 pm

This latest Wolter meltdown only goes further to prove he is NOT a scientist. Part of the scientific method is being challenged to defend your assertions, and having others test your ideas. Wolter wanting to only associate with people who agree with everything he says without question shows a lot about his character.

anon

7/21/2016 02:52:33 pm

Where did Wolter blame you for existing? Headline makes no sense.

Andy White

7/21/2016 03:27:35 pm

This is what I have to say about the matter:

http://www.andywhiteanthropology.com/blog/a-funny-thing-happened-on-the-way-to-the-dojo

Clete

7/21/2016 03:27:41 pm

I suspect that Scott Wolter is using the same language that was used by the History Channel when it was decided to end its association with him. "Any association with Scott Wolter is an instant deal killer that can only hurt one's reputation in this arena by any kind of association."

7/21/2016 05:03:02 pm

For your review Jason. And for the facts as found:
Two Hour Recording Below

Would history be recorded the same way if it had to stand up to the rigors of a legal trail? Could the findings of anthropology and archaeology withstand a trial by jury? Would history be viewed and taught the same way? What is one of North America's most controversial archaeological discoveries was put on trial to determine if it was a hoax or a real historic artifact? Which side would win? Where would the most compelling evidence come from? Would it be considered pseudo-science? Or would forensic science and the scientific method win the debate once and for all.

Listen in as Explorers, Researchers and Authors Scott Wolter and J Hutton Pulitzer put the Kensington Rune Stone ON TRIAL. #GoXplrr #WolterPulitzer #ScottWolter #HuttonPulitzer #FightForTruth #TrueHistory

http://wp.me/p1TaCe-14d

7/21/2016 05:58:18 pm

Fortunately, history isn't decided in a court of law. The scientific method and peer review are much more rigorous.

First, you have the "opening statement" (hypothesis). Second, you need to gather "testimony" that supports it (research, analysis, tests, physical evidence, documentation, chain of custody, etc.). In this step, you actually have to attempt to recreate the "crime scene". Third, there's "cross examination" (peer review). If at any time the hypothesis fails peer review, guess what? The "trial" is over and you have to repeat the first two steps. This continues until the hypothesis can pass peer review. Last, you have the "verdict" (where the hypothesis is accepted or denied, based on the evidence provided).

Notice in the above, I said the hypothesis is either accepted or denied. Peer review is there to improve quality, uphold standards or provide certification. Even if the above is met, that is no guarantee the hypothesis will be accepted, especially if the evidence presented cannot support it.

You don't need the legal system. What you need is a strong hypothesis with good evidence that passes professional standards.

Jason Colavito link

7/21/2016 06:03:12 pm

And don't forget that a trial isn't about proving objective truth but whether reasonable doubt exists in the minds of 12 jurors after the prosecution makes its case. The legal metaphor is silly to apply to questions of fact since we all know that many trials and legal cases ended with questionable or outright wrong verdicts (see, e.g.: jury nullification) or were overturned on appeal on a technicality even if all involved concede that the defendant committed the crime.

7/21/2016 06:18:18 pm

You raise a great point. The court applies the standard of reasonable doubt to the jurors, the defendant's peers.

Wolter and Pulitzer won't define who their peers are supposed to be and want a verdict in their favor with no room for doubt at all!

7/22/2016 11:32:17 am

Though Wolter might have been recognized in a court of law as an expert in regard to the structural soundness of building materials, he would never be so recognized in regard to his KRS findings. Both the Frye Standard and the more stringent Daubert Standard for court recognition of scientific evidence would prevent it. Such requirements as general acceptance within the scientific community, reliable scientific methodology, findings based on sufficient facts and data, true academic peer review, and ability to replicate testing/findings by others in the field all weigh heavily against him.

7/21/2016 06:07:28 pm

Why would I want to listen to the two of you recite your same old talking points for two hours without any other perspective? That isn't a "debate"; it's a rant. You can't have a fair trial in which the other side isn't invited. That's the kind of show trial you find in a dictatorship, though oddly apropos of your style.

7/21/2016 06:15:19 pm

I think that's what we call a kangaroo court.

7/21/2016 06:36:23 pm

So you have the very same information. We have suggested to Andy that once he assembles his team for the KRS, that we do a live web conference which can be recorded and each side present its case and facts and then let the audience decide. We will see is Andy accepts. As far as me spamming your site for traffic, we posted since you wrote a story about it, thus your readers would have an interest, but as with anytime you post our audio links we can expect 4 to 8 listeners. And in those 4 to 8 people you send our way from your efforts, they might learn something.

7/21/2016 06:45:01 pm

I have no idea what you are talking about, Hutton. There is no "team" for the KRS. Andy is a professor teaching a course. Courses sometimes have guest speakers who give a presentation, and then the students ask questions. For a man who brags about how many colleges and universities keep copies of a 15-year-old case study of his failed business in their libraries (which you label your "education" on your LinkedIn page), you certainly have no idea what actually goes on in a classroom.

Mike Morgan

7/21/2016 07:03:24 pm

Only Me, it does not rise to the level of a kangaroo court

Killbuck

7/21/2016 09:36:48 pm

Oh please, 2 hours? you could fit it into a teacup with room to spare.

Clint Knapp

7/21/2016 06:35:03 pm

I read the announcement and ensuing rants from Pulitzer this morning before work. The good laugh got my day off to a running start. I can't help but be amused by two things:

- Pulitzer (or Wolter via Pulitzer, or however that dynamic is supposed to be working) seems to believe there's some sort of panel involved in a professor bringing guest speakers in. It's as if he expects everyone who was going to take part in the class to show up at the same time and debate, when Andy made it clear they'd be guest speakers given their own time right from the get-go.

- Pulitzer appears to be trying to set himself up as Wolter's personal PR agent. It's very strange to see men who are supposedly partners in a venture entirely branded by Pulitzer acting as though Wolter is Pulitzer's client and their "joint venture" is more of a PR firm handling Scott's appearances and statements.

I can't say I'm surprised he backed out, and I think your participation in the class was just a convenient excuse to do it and stir up more controversy for his followers, but I am sorry Andy has to rework his class schedule around the inconvenience. I have a good friend who teaches at a university and know how much work goes into class prep and how annoying it can be to have to change course midstream.

7/21/2016 10:28:00 pm

...yeah, sounds to me like Putzer somehow thinks a university is a very long fan convention with panels and sales booths. Bets on whether he's more pissed that he won't be able to scream abuse at Jason or that he won't be able to peddle his cheap junk?

7/21/2016 10:41:48 pm

Peddle cheap junk, for sure. All those Treasure Force patches he could have hawked on unsuspecting college kids!

Mikey

7/21/2016 06:43:01 pm

I like Scott Wolter, well I did until he got involved with that fraud Hutton Pulitzer.

7/21/2016 07:39:42 pm

Of course you have no idea what I am saying Jason, you do not understand the concept of putting both sides of the debate out, so how could one hope you would understand. You only understand one sided attacks with no debate. What was suggested is Andy put together HIS TEAM who think KRS is pseudo science and fringe and then WE put together a team for the "this is an authentic historic artifact of great importance" and then- via video linked educational conference with each person - both sides in round robin, present their cases and facts. That is why you don't understand, you cant do anything with both sides of opposing views. You can only attack and attempt to discredit and if your facts are weak, then you reach for things like spelling, failed business and such. Well Jason, 2000 different tech business failed then, not just mine, and it was the device that failed not the technology or patents. So, what have you done to impact society? Not much, since the only way you can get attention is to attack. Now the offer for Andy is valid. Both sides, equal time, and broadcast and lets see where the facts fall and the facts fail. Can't be done in blogging and cannot be done in small scale class room, but can be done on large scale for all to see and judge for themselves. Easy peasy.

7/21/2016 08:02:27 pm

That is not at all what Andy was suggesting, and you should know that from his postings on the subject.

What he proposed, and Scott agreed to before you got involved, was that Scott would be given a platform as a guest speaker in Andy's class to give his side of the discussion so that Andy's students could evaluate it for themselves and learn the value of critically assessing historical claims. There was never a "his side" versus "your side" structure at all. It's a university class with a number of guest speakers on different subjects so the students could be exposed to several different facets of what we term "fringe archaeology" and learn for themselves whether the arguments presented held water.

That's how a university actually works. To suggest it was anything other than what Andy has stated plainly for all to see is to do him and his students a disservice, and only serves to show how little you understand about how higher education works.

This was not a panel, or a court case. It was a university level class that now has to be restructured because Scott dropped out of his commitment over petty, inaccurate squabbles with his critics.

7/21/2016 08:02:52 pm

One BIG problem with your idea there Hutton, if Jason were on team Andy, Wolter wouldn't participate.

7/21/2016 08:08:20 pm

So, in other words, Hutton, you'd like Andy to drop the who concept of his course and instead provide you with a PR opportunity you could monetize. For someone who falsely claimed to have won a "laureate" award from the Smithsonian for his innovation and world-changing triumphs, you certainly have a way of trying to latch on to other people to try to get them to do your bidding.

What have I contributed? You really ought not to ask that. I have translated books never before available in English, developed a taxonomy of the horror genre cited by actual scholars in real dissertations, uncovered the hidden history of the Chupacabra and the Scholomance, and earned the ire of the Turkish government when my investigation of the false facts behind Columbus' alleged sighting of a mosque in Cuba ran afoul of Erdogan's quasi-official pseudo-history. But I don't need to sing my own praises or make up fake awards and imaginary degrees.

If I understand you correctly, you reserve the right to attack me personally and to attack scholars in general and by name with impunity, by accusing them of conspiracies and malicious actions, but for me to point to facts is a step too far. Forgive me if I cannot keep your double standards straight. Perhaps you have self-published a guide to them for pre-order alongside "Solomon's Secret" and Commodus' Secret"?

7/21/2016 09:24:31 pm

To the South Pole! Mayhaps there, we will find enough ice for that burn!

TheBigMike

7/21/2016 09:58:29 pm

Nay! To the Arctic! Don't subject the penguins to such foolishness.

John

7/22/2016 02:00:09 am

Jason, you just keep making me respect you more and more. You have a lot of patience and class for someone that puts up with charlatans and sociopaths on a daily basis. And now even the ire of Erdogan's authoritarian administration through just setting the facts straight on his bullshit? Well done.

7/22/2016 08:03:00 am

When Erdogan was in Cuba, he claimed that Columbus had reported finding a medieval Muslim mosque there. The Washington Post cited in me in debunking the claim, and my blog post (written before Erdogan made the claim) went viral in Turkey, with (literally) hundreds of thousands of Turks reading it. I started getting hate mail from Turkey, and it seemed unlikely that the very similar messages were spontaneous. It burned out after a couple of days, once the news cycle moved on.

7/22/2016 04:39:54 pm

Jason, each time you continue to attempt to spin what is not accurate. You and I both know the Smithsonian/ComputerWorld Laureate Award was in fact won by me, and as I write this I am sitting here, looking at the bronze laureate leaf framed, with the note from the Committee stating "On Behalf of the representatives of the International Archives and Academic Counsel here assembled, the Chairman's Committee, The Smithsonian Computer world Honors Program, and future generations throughout the world for whom we hold the historic materials in trust, it is my honor and duty to bestow this medallion in commemoration of the outstanding quality of your work, and to thank you for your contribution to the history of information technology." (Medal and bronzed laurel leaf)..... Now each time I read this I laugh at you writing such was not real. I am sitting here with it framed on my office wall and accepted such award in Washington DC. You bend facts, yes I understand it is your way, but getting paid to write a few blogs does not add up to historic accomplishments. But, alas even if you were to walk into Princeton, Harvard or Yale or any one of the 140 others and pull the files, the case study and the peer reviewed and awarded work, you would still find some way to discount it. Thus, with you- everything is a losing battle. But at the end of the day, the results are in the end work product and the historical record. As far as Solomon's Secret, at least you know they have started to ship. So, whats your point? This is how you operate. Someone you select to degrade, they write something, you write "it was not original", or "it was boring, copied or uneventful". Why? YOU have no sense of accomplishment. You desire accomplishment, but you live in a world where HERE on your blog, no real people use their names.... why- you and Andy cross post to make it appear you have followers interested, but yet, track back the IP's and it is mostly and abundantly you two supporting each other. And the very few who are actual different individuals other than you, do the same thing, post with no names or real ID's and post over and over using different names. It is like when you posted our last Xplrr recording, your post (back linking) generated a measly 5 plays. Now for someone who sends out emails saying you have 200,000 readers, but you generate 5 plays is a joke. Why, you don't have 200,000 readers. You have 200,000 hits to your website since you started. Hell, we do that sometimes with a single post within a few hours. This is the source of your rub. If there was NO Scott Wolter and America Unearthed YOU would have no content to ride on. You took his show and then adapted it to the negative side. Thus without Scott or people like me- you are nothing and have nothing. This style goes back to your childhood and your Charlie Brown inadequacies. They relentlessly bullied you as a kid. You could not run, do sports or even engage socially, but when you found you could blog you took out your revenge on the cool kids. Alas, those cool kids are gone on, so now you attack those you wish to emulate and those you wish to be more like, but you have adopted the very persona of the bullies that destroyed your childhood and have adopted their attack methods, yet you are not them, you can’t do the face to face thing, but you can do it well behind a computer screen. Now, as for me... I admire anyone who has written a book, just as you have, and just as I have many times over. Me, I am driven by over achievement. My goal? To be the first to publish 600 individual titles and I am over 50% there. But that is just me. So, my beef with you? You cannot have straight debate and point-by-point, you resort to the very same style you detested in jr. high and high school. Total role reversal. For me - I think it takes both sides and the pro and con is needed and should be served side by side. That is best to the PUBLIC. Anyway, too much to write and so little time and just wanted to address your spin, just like the media at larger, spin spin spin. Try putting out content, instead of attacks and see how your traction goes. But good thing for you running from your bullied childhood and creating and writing, but shame shame on you for becoming the very same type of bully who now lives to attack and beat others down in an attempt to make themselves feel better, find an identity and feel powerful. I do agree, you can write and have a great knack, now just imagine if it was positive and meaningful. You could do better than be a negative belly. Just my thoughts.

7/22/2016 05:07:31 pm

Wow. The Great Wall of Crap.

I guess you aren't aware of this, HP, but there are a lot of people who are fully aware of your history. There are many adjectives to describe you and none of them are complimentary.

Your attempt at armchair psychology is as pathetic as your claim Jason needs Scott Wolter to exist for content. Actually, you're the one who needs Wolter. Real history and science has no need for either of you.

John (the other one)

7/22/2016 05:27:23 pm

No way that was written by JHP unless he cut and pasted it, which he is known to do. Far too grammatically correct.

In any case whoever it is seems to think debate and scientific or historical fact is some sort of police state where everyone is on one side or the other.

What a fucking wack-job.

I agree with someone above, I liked Wolter more when he was just a putz with a TV show that sensible people knew was full of crap. This Pulitzer angle is trash. It's unpleasant to interact with or even read about at times.

Joe D.

7/22/2016 05:44:06 pm

Hutton,

I am quite puzzled with your response. Why exactly you are saying Jason is scared of Scott and you. As I recall from a couple of days ago this all started when Wolter dropped out of his speaking engagement in Andy's class about the KRS. He dropped out because he heard from you or someone else that Jason will participate in another speaking engagement for Andy's class. He claimed he can not associate in anyway in any event with Mr. Colavito. Even after it was clarified that the two were scheduled for different classes addressing non related topics Scott has stayed on his stance of not attending for the previously stated reason. Now the two of you concoct some publicized "trial" with Andy and Jason participating. How is Scott now ok to participate in an event with Jason now when that was not the case 2 days ago. Neither is interested in participating and you start calling them names and harassing them.
I am not sure if you visit this site often but Scott is only one of dozens of topics that Jason covers. He has published several books that have nothing to do with Mr Wolters work. To me it appears that the two of you are obsessed with Jason and his work instead of the way you are stating it. Since you are a spoke person for Wolter these days, why is he now refusing to attend Andy's class now that he knows Jason will not be there and Andy is giving him an opportunity to explain the work he has done on the KRS and discuss his methodology in a scientific method with college students?

7/22/2016 05:55:16 pm

Wrong again, Jovan (if that really is you). I use my real name and always have, and I've never posted under any alias here whatsoever.

Wrong still: Jason isn't paid to do any of his blog posts. He does this entirely on his own dime, occasionally getting donations to keep the lights on.

Even more wrong: " If there was NO Scott Wolter and America Unearthed YOU would have no content to ride on." This blog existed before America Unearthed and continues to exist in a post-AU world because this blog has never been about AU or Scott Wolter specifically. He, and his show, have only ever been a minor part in an ever-expanding world of fringe snake-oil peddlers highlighted on this blog. Just because the Wolter-and-or-Pulitzer related articles are the only ones you read does not make it a Wolter-centric blog (or Pulitzer, in fact, very little Pulitzer except when you're spouting off idiocy about Roman swords or trying to suck up to more famous fringe proponents).

As for your goal to "be the first to publish 600 individual titles", you already lost. Even if we discount the works of Charles Hamilton (estimated 1,200 novel-length wordcount, across countless stories mostly written as short stories for magazines), a romance author by the name of Barbara Cartland authored over 720 novels before her death in 2000. R.L Stein has over 420 and counting. Any one of these authors either has already beaten your copy-and-paste treasure guide format, and they did it by writing original works.

7/22/2016 06:08:10 pm

So "Commodus's Secret" is now available? Where can I get a copy?

Also: when will the "spring 2016" Roman sword white paper be coming out?

7/23/2016 05:17:31 am

"I do agree, you can write and have a great knack, now just imagine if it was positive and meaningful."

Yeah. Is it just me, or does that sound like a phrase Scott would type? I have read enough of Pulitzer's posts and interacted with Scott enough to know that Pulitzer would never say or phrase anything like that, but Scott would. And it sounds like Pulitzer, If he wrote it (see I can accuse too - its not that hard), is projecting in his response. I have seen this same ad hominem attack on people in academia and journalism plenty of times. Not all people who take their work seriously, and who have a love for anything intellectual are the anti-social geek stereotype that we have created in our culture. It says so much about Pulitzer, and how he can't even argue his own points if he has to resort to that. No one can be taken seriously who can't make their case without ending in personal attack. It's not professional, and someone who claims to be respected by well known institutions like the Smithsonian, would no better to show more class than that and act like an actual ethical researcher.

7/23/2016 04:02:37 pm

Just for the record, I called ComputerWorld, and with their help obtained the original award records. Your company (not you) was nominated and designated one of five finalists. You did not receive the award, but your company was named a laureate in 2001 along with the other 311 nominees designated "laureates" that year and got a medal along with the others. ComputerWorld put out a press release to that effect in 2001.

I'd love to hear how you are tracking the IP addresses of people who post comments on my blog. Are you suggesting that you are involved in digital spying? Even I have only limited access to commenters' data. And how, may I ask, and I responsible for what other people (from many different perspectives) choose to post as blog comments? That's like holding you responsible for everyone who reacts to one of your YouTube rants. Sad!

I love, by the way, the Scott Wolter masculinity-in-crisis psychoanalysis. As someone whose father was a firefighter, who grew up with football players, and who is friends with a (now former) professional hockey player, I have yet to feel my masculinity threatened by old men "crying how bright / Their frail deeds might have danced a green bay." But by all mean, rage on.

You are perhaps angry that your words have "forked no lightning," but you needn't project it onto me. This blog has been running since before America Unearthed ever aired (and its predecessor site was online for almost a decade before that) and it continues on regardless of your projects. It isn't a money-maker, or even for profit. It is merely my hobby.

It is sad that I need to point this out, but I will anyway since you are too obtuse to see it: All of the "attacks" on you that you have now labeled "bullying" are intentional mirrors of the specific attacks you and Wolter have made, countered point for point and method for method. The literary device loses some of its power when unmasked, but your lack of self-awareness has left you blind to the fact that I merely reflected (and deflected) your particular style back onto you, but like most bullies you can dish it out but can't take it. You thrive on expecting your opponents to offer milquetoast rebuttals couched in deferential language, and you therefore mistake me for a member of the rarefied elite who would not deign to return fire in kind.

Questioning

7/21/2016 08:03:33 pm

this is almost as good as watching the political conventions... Please- one day Wolters/Hutton are saying no way, no how are we going to be on the same venue as a 'debunker' and lower ourselves.. now today... walla, Damage control and trying to put it back on the man teaching the class. Get real, or go home.

7/22/2016 02:42:00 pm

No it's better, because their exact words will preserved on the internet and on available ondemand via a simple Google search forevermore.

7/22/2016 12:00:51 am

I gleaned these excerpts from Andy's most recent blog comments at his site. As a so-called fringe believer, I just wanted to say that I'm not actually a fringe believer, and the search for truth in the matter of the KRS is nowhere near completed.

I used to be a college classroom student myself on the way to obtaining a Bachelors degree in Criminal/Social Justice, and I believe wholeheartedly in the scientific process, especially in the role of evidence. Though I'm a Christian, I believe in evolution, which is science based.

I would like to reiterate that I have carefully laid out the scientific, historical, geographical and photographic backgrounds for my very public hypothesis about the proposed Norse Code-stone I recently discovered. My articles about stoneholes and medieval waterways in the Upper Midwest region of the US have recently been published in the Norwegian American Weekly, explaining in detail backgrounds for both the KRS and for the Norse Code-stone.

So far, my scientific and academic approach isn't working here in MN or elsewhere, primarily because of entrenched hidebound-ness. So then, these comments by Andy White are refreshing to me as a so-called fringe thinker who knows in his heart and brain that there were numerous expeditions into MN by Norsemen even well before the KRS party came along. I predict that one day not far off, new evidences of Scandinavian exploration will be unearthed in this very specific region where ocean waterways meet far inland, completing a huge waterway circle.

Anyway, thanks Andy, for these comments of yours, which give me hope concerning the Norse Code-stone. I've tried to be both careful and detailed in unveiling it. I welcome you and your class to examine the scientific details of my find, which I characterize as a "miracle of discovery."

Some of Andy White's encouraging comments at his blog:

"The Forbidden Archaeology course is designed as an exercise in evidence-based critical thinking and communication. It exists to demonstrate to students that we have mechanisms for discerning credible from non-credible explanations of the human past."

"Holding ideas up to evidence-based scrutiny is what archaeologists do. If you're not doing that, you're not doing science. Forbidden Archaeology is designed to help students learn how to critically evaluate competing narratives about the past."

"...in my book there really is nothing that is "forbidden." As long as we have some mechanism for measuring the credibility of ideas and evidence, there's no reason to be afraid of examining any claim about the past."

Big Tony

7/22/2016 12:45:30 am

Hey Jason just a heads up, it's not worth your time, but that soundcloud link Hutton is spamming everywhere spends 5-10 minutes in the beginning going after you directly. They also imply that you have lied about certain credentials/accomplishments.

7/22/2016 01:26:04 am

Update: I made it 45 minutes in and had to turn it off before I pulled my hair out, but man you have really gotten under these guys' skin somehow. Essentially the entirety of what I heard of their "trial" for the Kensington Rune Stone was completely off topic responses to your criticisms of Wolter.

Honestly, I think Andy White dodged a bullet here. Scott Wolter can't speak for 5 minutes without falling back on his anti-academic crutch, especially now that he's in Hutton's back pocket (or at the very least is letting Hutton speak for him publicly).

7/22/2016 01:36:14 am

I love how Pulitzer said, "Decide, for yourself, what your truth is." I thought the truth was based on facts, not personal preference.

As to Jason, Pulitzer read excerpts from Jason's comment to him on Andy White's blog. He then brings up the publication amount of the Epigraphic Society and Barry Fell to belittle Jason's statement:

"I have produced a greater volume of historiographic research into fringe topics than virtually anyone in the field, including original translations, documentary research, etc."

And what does Wolter say?

"First off, I didn't realize it was a contest. Even if we take this person's claims at face value, just because they have done these things, doesn't mean that they done it well, they done it correctly, that they done anything that qualifies them to be superior to me in any regard. And that's fine, he can sit and brag about his credentials all he wants. I want to know what he's done."

I quit listening after this, because Wolter and Pulitzer both revealed they know very little about publishing. Shocking, I know.

7/22/2016 02:11:34 am

@ Only Me

"I love how Pulitzer said, "Decide, for yourself, what your truth is.""

That is the essence of Solipsism. If Pulitzer is really going to embrace something as bullshit as that philosophy than Wolter really is destroying his career as he knows it just by his association with this clown alone.

7/22/2016 02:02:19 am

They should not be talking considering how they have lied about their own credentials.

7/22/2016 09:20:03 am

I listened to it, and it's hilarious that Pulitzer feels that he has to distort and misrepresent my comments to try to make it sound like I'm trying to assert "superiority" over Wolter by noting that we have very similar credentials for making statements about history. I love the fact that he had to bring in an ENITRE ORGANIZATION's worth of publications to try to refute the idea that I've produced more historiographic research (a very specific type of research, which I cited for that reason) than most fringe historians. My blog totals several million words at this point, which I'm not sure is entirely an accomplishment given what it represents about how much trash fringe historians put out. You'd think Pulitzer would try to cite his own 200+ self-published books to challenge my credentials. Oh, wait... That's right: They're mostly the same copy-and-pasted content.

An Over-Educated Grunt

7/22/2016 10:55:47 am

"I don't care what he did, tell me what he did!"

When I read that particular post from Wolter I almost fell over laughing. Scotty truly doesn't know.

7/22/2016 05:33:27 pm

Words an attack "Only Me" and others, carry no weight when they cannot be done with ones real identity. Thus, being out front and center is the only way to both live and be real. All others who lurk and hide and what is wrong with the world today. Easy to lurk, hide, and spring attack, much more honorable and noble to live out and seen in daylight.

7/22/2016 05:46:52 pm

Then your comment should have been unnecessary. If my words truly carried no weight, you wouldn't have responded. You did, however; that means something in what I said struck a chord. I now give you the floor to explain how you don't care SO MUCH, you feel compelled to tell the rest of us you don't care.

7/22/2016 05:48:13 pm

Says the guy who goes by a pseudonym. Isn't that right Mr Philyaw

7/23/2016 11:05:15 am

My name as reflected my my drivers license, state department id, passport, credit cards, ssn and more is Jovan Hutton Pulitzer thus real name here. Facts matter

7/23/2016 10:05:39 pm

Hutton Pulitzer 7/23/2016 11:05:15 am

"My name as reflected my my drivers license, state department id, passport, credit cards, ssn and more is Jovan Hutton Pulitzer thus real name here. Facts matter"

Mr, "Facts Matter",
Strange you list all these items that reflect your name change, except the only document that is required to make it legal - the Court Order.

Hummm, let's see, you have stated that the original purpose for changing your name was so a "stalker" who wanted you for "man love" during your NetTalk Live days, would not be able to find you. You were so concerned about this "stalker" that you put off the name change because your new company, Digital Convergence, the company that produced the CueCat, a product that one reviewer at the time wrote "fails to solve a problem which never existed.", was just starting. You were still so concerned about this "stalker" that you continued putting off the name change through the IPO, oh yeah, because the "Wall Street bankers and lawyers" thought a name change might cause confusion and apprehension from investors, not to mention $ for you. Yep, the almighty $ trumps safety concerns over a "stalker". But you were still so concerned about this "stalker", that after the IPO and continuing on through the eventual demise and death throes of the company headed by you, "the next Bill Gates", you still continued on with your given name. Finally, after the smoke cleared from the implosion of the company that offered the device that "fails to solve a problem which never existed.", several YEARS after the first appearance of the "man love" "stalker" who caused you so much concern, you became "Jovan Hutton Pulitzer" or "J Hutton Pulitzer".

Well that certainly would take care of that "stalker" problem, you were out of the public eye, he could never find you now, not that he was probably even still interested in you anyway after all that time.

Oh, but wait. Not long after the name change, your overblown ego reared it's ugly head and you began plastering your mug all over promoting new schemes and on many self promotional videos.

Good job on the invisibility thing, I'm sure your "stalker" never put 2 and 2 together.

BTW. Mike Morgan is my given name but you already must be familiar with my name - I am on your "banned" list for your Facebook groups even though I never attempted to join or post on them. Must be because you monitor Andy's Facebook groups and had seen my unflattering posts concerning you.

7/22/2016 05:51:59 pm

Well, J-Jo, I'll tell you what. You can lecture me about honor after you admit to bad-mouthing the Oak Island crew after you took their coin. Whether they paid you for appearances or not you benefited from the exposure, then bit the hand that fed you. Would you like to lecture some more about honor and pseudonyms, Mr. Philyaw?

Sunshine

7/22/2016 07:35:31 pm

Hutton none here is using fake names, you just fine know them, not sure why you care either.. so you can talk about them o your face book page like you did me? So you can make fun and giggle ? I've seen what you've done and continue to do. You have no part in this discussion, will the real Scott Walter please stand up... you are argumentative and possibly jealous because Andy didn't invite you and your fake sword his classroom?

7/23/2016 11:06:38 am

"Hutton", you're the one who seeks fame promoting a fraudulent skew on history. We are the public that rejects it. What, you want to hunt us down and damage us somehow? You want to drag our names through the mud as you do with any critic, writer or academic who takes it upon themselves to publish works questioning your motives, methodology and grasp on both facts and science? Pure ad hominem on your part to equate anonymity with lack of credibility in this regard. You can't meet the arguments against you. You can't escape your own penchant for mendacity. We, the public, call you out on it accordingly.

Anyhow, Wolter has told his fans on his blog more than once that he knows who I am. Was he lying?

7/23/2016 02:18:01 pm

I love how people like you love to drag out this thing of "YOU DON'T USE YOUR REAL NAME ON THE INTERNET!" It just proves you're an old fart who doesn't really understand how the world works anymore.

Rule #1 of Internet Safety, as taught to children as young as kindergarten: NEVER. EVER. EVER. Give out personally identifying information on the Internet. It is entirely unsafe.

You don't have to know someone's "real name" in order for them to be right. You're a fool if you think words carry no weight, but then, you've proven THAT with your own words repeatedly. You go ahead and pretend that you're "honorable" and "noble." An HONORABLE, NOBLE person wouldn't indulge in as much fraud and bullshit as you do, and the rest of us can tell that you reek of manure, sir.

You are contemptible, and all your posturing does nothing to disguise it.

Doug

7/23/2016 04:43:19 pm

"carry no weight whn they cannot be done with onesreal identity"

You don't even use your own birthname! You changed it to Pulitzer!

Ken

7/26/2016 08:35:07 am

Hey Hutton, My PENis bigger then your PENis , cause sacks do matter. Neener Neener.

Sticker (A Real Person)

7/23/2016 12:55:56 pm

I can't speak for anyone else here, but I personally have attempted to watch one of Pulitzer's/Xplrr's videos Jason has linked to in previous blog posts and after the initial schadenfreude intrigue wore off, soon found it unbearable --- and thus have not watched more. If other loyal readers have experienced this same phenomenon, it could just have something to do with the limited number of hits HP says he gets as a result of Jason's blog.

Klaus

7/23/2016 04:12:18 pm

Well, I do like the blogs of Jason and Andy .. and have spent just enough time with the two clowns (JHP/SW) outpourings to properly classify them a complete waste of time for me ... to not open up on their spammed podcast links is to avoid further waste ... their recent assclownery on "Forbidden Astrology" reminds me of a dog running away with his tail between his legs .... ah well .. grow up guys

Klaus

7/23/2016 03:58:41 pm

Hutton. Thank you for your input in these blogs over the past couple days. Now everyone can see for themselves how you are deluded, self centered in that you can't hear what others are saying, and an egomaniac (who else changes thier name to Pulitzer!). You think your so convincing and slick that "how dare anyone disagree with you"! You can't hold your own in a debate therefore you try to work your "spin" to discredit the other. By trying to discredit Jason you have only succeeded in showing what a small petty person you are. You have lost any credibility you may of had. Your like a case study in how not to debate with others. You can't hold a candle to Jason. He's reasonable, has a good working knowledge about what he's talking about, tries to be openminded and honest, and doesn't stoop to school yard antics such as yourself. He has class, you do not. Your have some serious issues. Seek counseling. It's also interesting that we haven't heard a word from Wolters. I'll bet he's having doubts about his association with you at this point, but maybe not. I don't feel sorry for him. It's like you two deserve each other. Hope you find some honest purpose in life other than trying to convince the world of what a genius you aren't.

PS: You have belittled the name/word Pulitzer. You shoul have stuck with your birth name Jeffry Jovan Philyaw. (Ego?)

Kathleen

7/23/2016 09:31:42 pm

Earlier today on Facebook, JHP declared that the KRS Trial podcast had 21,000 viewers in one day! Incredible!

Sticker

7/24/2016 10:05:26 am

I know, it's interesting ... I just found it on Soundcloud and it does appear to have (more than) that amount of listens now. So how come his post about it has NO likes? How come one of his Twitter posts about it has two likes and the other has one? Maybe this is because of his confusing profusion of different disconnected websites and accounts? On some platforms you would imagine him to be wildly popular, while on others it appears that barely anyone notices what he is producing.

7/24/2016 10:55:44 am

Oh wait! I just found ANOTHER Facebook page of his where the link has 17 likes. My bad!

Peter Geuzen

7/24/2016 10:21:10 am

He buys them through a third party that uses bots to script fake listens. It's very cheap to do, you buy in blocks of thousands. To be clear, it's fake listens, not listeners as he wrote. Notice how there are no comments and very few likes, even though there are these alleged high numbers of listens. This is the clear evidence of BS. He does this for all his recordings to inflate the numbers, thus inflate and fabricate his BS image.

7/24/2016 11:15:26 am

Is that bull or bat?

7/25/2016 02:26:04 pm

Chuckle for the day. Views up to 85.1k. That's a listen every 2.7 seconds for the last 48 hours! Math is fun

Assonaut Exaterressial

7/24/2016 09:02:13 am

As I have posted earlier:

Jason inconveniences some theorists with things like facts and solid, documentable research. Stop trying to refute Jason's points with personal attacks.

As for real names: if you are J. Hutton, you should use your real name as well, not the one you paid a fee for at a courthouse. What's in a name? Mostly the credibility attached to it created by someone else's life work. Sad.

William Smith

7/24/2016 10:48:17 am

History has a way of repeating and the passing of Richard Nielson brings much of this to memory. After Wolter and Nielson published their first book the KRS went down two tracks. One was supported with academic facts and peer reviews, while the other took the (look at me) rout. In my work with both over the years relating to the KRS, I am sure only one will be in the hall of fame. On one hand we can blame Dick for the de-railing, however on the other hand we can credit him for staying with the academic process and bringing the facts to the public as well as people on board like Henrick Williams to study the subject. When we are all gone the two trains will be going down the same track. One train will have Dick and Henrick at the helm with science credibility people on board. On the other train we can visualize Scott and Hutton at the wheel waving their sword and telling all to purchase a ticket for the price of a book. You can pick what train you wish to ride, however when the train gets to the final destination, only the truth will be history. Have a good ride.

7/24/2016 05:50:32 pm

I think Wolter might rather be in the peaceful little yellow caboose at the end of all this, but at least he will have a "dotted R" TRUMP CARD in his back pocket...which will still mean that the KRS is the real deal, after all...and that he was right about its authenticity....

7/25/2016 10:24:18 am

Except that it hasn't so far been demonstrated to prove that. The dotted r issue is fascinating, but in order for it to really prove authenticity, we'd have to be able to show two things:

- That those dots were intentionally created at the time of carving (and are not some of the many natural pits and nicks found all over the stone's surface, for example --- how come the dot on even the clearest one does not resemble the deep forcefulness of the many other obviously carved dots in the inscription?).

- That they were carved FOR the linguistic purpose of creating a dotted r (and not as part of a lightly etched pre-carving guideline grid, which might explain their relative faintness).

The linguistic issue is the most interesting to me personally. If these are true dotted r's meant to represent the zh/z palatal r sound, it would appear the carver inserted one into a word that doesn't have that sound (norr) and inexplicably left it out of another word that definitely does (skjär). The whole thing is so very weird and compelling!

7/25/2016 07:49:53 pm

@Sticker: Of course, it is possible that a dotted R on the KRS is unintended, and that another one is intended, which could really confuse the linguistic issue.

I ran across a situation in the field within the last few years where I came upon an "embarrassment of riches," which was well over thirty stonehole rocks in one place. But, the location was confusing because stoneholes had been made there representing two different eras. It took a considerable amount of work and research, both online and in the field, before I was able to discern what had occurred there. See, several medieval stonehole rocks and over thirty late 1800's stonehole rocks are accompanying each other at the same important waterway junction, as it turns out. People seeing and believing this is another matter entirely!

Of course, the possible similarity in the two cases, above, is that some situations may not be as they seem to be, initially. In that vein, I would venture to guess that the rune-maker had to be a bit circumspect (delicate), in putting a dot within the upper loop of the R in one clear example; and yet, it is unmistakably a dotted R. Perhaps it is the only one on the KRS meant for linguistic reasons, or perhaps not.

I agree with you that the whole thing is so very weird...but, again, sometimes things are not as they seem until fresh insight comes along. But, for now, it seems as though there may very well be a purposely made, valid "linguistic" dotted R on the KRS.

We cannot say with certainty that the KRS doesn't have any valid dotted R's on it at the present time...and yet at the same time some observers seem to clearly see what appears to be a good example of one. Seeing can be believing in this case, just possibly, then....

7/25/2016 11:44:13 am

@Sticker,
your last comments sounds like you have been studying the stone for a least 3 full years., .... ??

7/25/2016 12:28:18 pm

GEE, I guess you got through at least as much of the "KRS Trial" as I did. That part was wild! No one can match Wolter's 2-3 years for 24 hours a day or whatever it was he and HP calculated. I know they were trying to establish SW's expertise à la the introduction of an expert witness in court, but it also almost seemed like HP was implying that the amount of time one spends on something increases the likelihood that one's conclusions about it are correct. If so, I think the great inventor may just have invented a brand new type of logical fallacy.

7/25/2016 01:34:41 pm

It was hard getting through it, Sticker. I did notice that the opening line started with NON Truths, Hutton said that there would be notables involved in the conversation, and all I got was Hutton and Scott...

7/25/2016 04:28:26 pm

Mr. Philyaw:
It does not make sense to go on about these blogs of this web site. This is not a paid blog. It is not run by any organization. This is just an author's web site. Get over your self. Go find something constructive that doesn't involve the computer. Stop trolling and stalking the posters. It is not becoming of someone of your alleged pedigree. Thank you.

7/31/2016 09:09:10 am

http://images.fastcompany.com/magazine/80/cuecatwhite.jpg

I so forgot the "invention" that earned the nomination in the first place. I must have repressed it as I tend to slap myself on the forehead when I see it: the Cuecat, a mouse-sized bar code scanner shaped like a cat. My forehead is sore; I just did it again.

Incidentally, the picture address posted above comes from a site that describes the Cuecat as one of the most ridiculed inventions (as of 2004). Now it's just mostly forgotten except by investors. Who probably hit themselves in the forehead and reflect: What was I thinking?!

I did notice the term "bilked" used to describe investors' feelings too.