And here I was ready to discuss Brien Foerster’s bizarre alien DNA study. Instead, I received dozens of emails this morning alerting me to an angry blog post Scott Wolter made calling for a congressional investigation into the Smithsonian’s suppression of pre-Columbian Old World contact with North America. We’ll get to that in a moment, but first I would like to say a few words about Foerster and alien DNA. Bigfoot, Star Children, and Ancient Astronauts Most of you know that head-binding to create elongated skulls is a widespread human practice found in many places around the world. Hippocrates described the process in his Of Air, Water, and Situation thousands of years ago: “As soon as the Child was born, they immediately fashion’d the soft and tender Head of it with their Hands, and, by the use of bandages and proper arts, forc’d it to grow lengthwise; by which means the sphærical figure of the Head was perverted, and the length increas’d” (trans. Francis Clifton). This explanation, repeatedly confirmed by anthropological investigation and observation, isn’t enough for so-called “Star Child” researchers, ancient astronaut theorists, or the so-called Nephilim research community, all of whom see these skulls as evidence of otherworldly beings. So Foerster obtained DNA samples from elongated skulls found in Paracas, Peru in the 1920s and preserved at a museum near the site. It is unclear whether he had proper export permits for this work since ancient remains are not typically allowed out of the country without permits, and Foerster recently started a fundraising campaign where he explicitly said he had smuggled artifacts out of Bolivia via Peru. Human remains are specifically on the International Council of Museums’ Red List of prohibited Peruvian antiquities. (I raised this issue when he exported the teeth back in 2012.) Anyway, Doubtful News has much more to say on the nuts and bolts of why Foerster’s claim that the skull contains anomalous DNA shouldn’t be trusted. What shocked me is that Foerster entrusted the DNA analysis to Dr. Melba Ketchum, the woman who self-published a paper last year claiming to have proved via alleged Sasquatch DNA that Bigfoot was an ape-human hybrid. Ketchum has further ties to Genesis Quest, a company working to “prove” the existence of the Nephilim and to sell their investigation as a reality series to the Discovery Channel. Ketchum once claimed Bigfoot was a Nephilim Bible giant. Now since Foerster is a coauthor of a book about elongated skulls with David Childress, who is a close colleague of Giorgio Tsoukalos, who argued that Bigfoot was an extraterrestrial hybrid sent here by UFO pilots, the entire alternative/fringe history ecosphere is beginning to collapse in on itself toward a bizarre singularity where ancient astronauts, Bigfoot studies, and the Nephilim all come together in a chorus of hosannas uniting New Agers and Biblical fundamentalists in praise of God, or the aliens they take for gods. Scott Wolter Calls for Congressional Hearings Last month the Smithsonian Institution returned the Bat Creek Stone to the Eastern Band of the Cherokee, in part due to agitation from Scott Wolter, who has pushed the Cherokee to demand its return since at least 2010. In turning over the artifact, the Smithsonian issued a statement reiterating that the stone is “an obvious fraud” that had been retained for the past 120 as one of many such examples of archaeological hoaxes. As a result, Cherokee elder Don Rose requested that the tribe avoid spending money to display a hoax and place the object in storage. [Update 2/10/14: Scott Wolter is, once again, wrong. According to archaeologist Brad Lepper, who spoke with Bruce D. Smith of the Smithsonian this past weekend, the stone remains Smithsonian property and was only loaned to the Cherokee for a temporary exhibit. To repeat: Wolter is wrong and the Bat Creek Stone remains U.S. government property.] Scott Wolter became outraged at this statement, which was no different than any other Smithsonian statement on the artifact over the past half-century. He issued a response, though he does not say how (I can find no record of its publication), in which he asserted that the Smithsonian’s curator of North American archaeology, Dr. Bruce D. Smith, were “willfully ignoring” Wolter’s “scientific data” in order “to continue to preserve an historical paradigm of the Smithsonian Institution’s choosing.” He said this “reeks of an agenda” and asserted that his finding demonstrated that the stone was “consistent with a circa-1500 year old date.” He neglected to note that, by his own admission (Ancient American magazine, 2010; America Unearthed S02E10, 2014), his relative dating technique proved only that the stone’s inscription had been carve sometime between the early centuries CE and c. 1960, when later scratches were first seen on the stone. The letters were older than the scratches, but exactly how old could not be determined because there was no control sample to give a terminus post quem. His results were “consistent” not just with a 500 CE date, but also with a date of 1889, when the hoax stone had been unearthed, or any time in between. He also neglected to note that for 120 years, from 1894 to 2014, the Smithsonian has allowed fringe history researchers—including Scott Wolter, twice—access to the object for study and has taken no steps to “suppress” any of their findings. This is an “agenda”? Wolter then states: The seriousness of this situation, in my opinion, demands a Congressional investigation since the Smithsonian receives government funding. The tax-payers of this country, and indeed the world, deserve better given the Smithsonian’s perceived reputation of competency. He promises to lobby for a congressional investigation. As regular readers are aware, this is somewhat ironic because America Unearthed received significant funding from taxpayers via Minnesota Film and Television, which distributed tens of thousands in state tax dollars to fund the pilot episode of the series, according to production documents I obtained from Minnesota Film and Television last year. This seems to suggest that according to Wolter, the Minnesota legislature ought to be investigating Wolter’s own competence for his promotion of conspiracy theories.
At any rate, Dr. Smith unwisely chose to prolong the situation by semi-seriously remarking that he looked forward to reading Wolter’s “scientific” findings in a peer-reviewed journal, taking a swipe at Wolter’s lack of credentials, notably his undergraduate degree in geology as his sole academic training. This, of course, caused Wolter to become apoplectic because he is extremely prickly about challenges to his self-image as an authority figure. A graduate degree is not required to do science, but following protocol, involving publishing the methodology and findings of investigations is required. To date, Wolter has not published in a peer-reviewed journal to share this information. Instead, Wolter demanded to know why he, as a “licensed professional” had professional accountability for his work in concrete stability studies, but a “tenured professor” lacked any accountability. He apparently has never dealt with university administration. He further rejects the idea of academic peer review, claiming his forensic work has been “peer reviewed” according to the ASTM and AASHTO standards. The first deals with forensic science and the second with traffic safety issues; neither has standards related to the dating of prehistoric artifacts. But what I find interesting is that Wolter accuses the Smithsonian of defending a “centuries old paradigm” apparently in utter ignorance of the fact that the Smithsonian, in the 1840s, imposed a paradigm of a “lost white race” via the work of Squier and Davis, which in turn had been the official ideology of America since the days of Andrew Jackson. It was only in 1894 that the Smithsonian put the Mound Builder myth to rest. But even in doing this, they have not defended an isolationist paradigm; the Smithsonian published the work of Betty Meggers—a Smithsonian research associate—who had claimed that Ecuador’s Valdavia culture derived from the Jomon culture of Japan. More to the point: Tomorrow Wolter will profile the work of Dennis Stanford, the director of the Paleoindian program at the Smithsonian’s National Museum of Natural History, and the leading advocate of the claim that the Solutrean people of Spain colonized America around 20,000 years ago. There is hardly a paradigmatic suppression of Old World contact at the Smithsonian. There are two other points worth making because they are serious accusations that speak to Wolter’s lack of rigor and conspiratorial mindset. First, Wolter asks why Smithsonian research assistant John Emmert, who found the Bat Creek Stone in 1889, didn’t point out that the stone’s inscription was Paleo-Hebrew when Thomas mistook if for Creek in the 1890s. That one is simple: Emmert wasn’t trying to make a Hebrew inscription but rather something that could pass for Cherokee. He didn’t want it to be seen as Hebrew since that wasn’t what Thomas was looking for. Second, he declares it “unethical” to accuse Emmert of planting the Bat Creek Stone because he cannot defend himself, being a century dead. This is a strange application of ethics, and if followed according to Wolter’s preferences it would eliminate nearly all historiography, source criticism, and indeed any evaluation of life before the present. Criticizing and evaluating the actions and claims of earlier observers is the very essence of doing the work of writing history. Therefore, Wolter also admits that he is engaging in “unethical” behavior when he accuses Cyrus Thomas and other nineteenth century Smithsonian officials of “suppressing” the truth. Wolter wants us to read any disagreement with him as the result of a conspiracy to suppress the truth, not simply an independent evaluation of evidence that reached a different conclusion, or, worse, rejected his findings as incorrect. Ultimately, that may well be the real sin of the Smithsonian: telling Scott Wolter that he is wrong.
109 Comments
An Over-Educated Grunt
2/7/2014 03:25:44 am
... Aaaand back to the SWamp.
Reply
Forensic Geologist
9/6/2015 03:10:21 pm
"I'd be interested in knowing if anyone has talked to the Minnesota licensure board for geology about him." I've been wondering the same thing.
Reply
2/7/2014 03:43:59 am
"Wolter wants us to read any disagreement with him as the result of a conspiracy to suppress the truth, not simply an independent evaluation of evidence that reached a different conclusion, or, worse, rejected his findings as incorrect."
Reply
Only Me
2/7/2014 04:15:02 am
Now I understand why Pluto was declassified as the ninth planet. We had to make room for Scott's ego.
Reply
Dave Lewis
2/7/2014 03:47:47 pm
Good one!
Reply
Jason D.
2/7/2014 08:50:17 pm
And here I thought it was to hide the secret time-travelling Templar/Freemason/Welsh Indian/Lost Jew space base.
Reply
Laetitia
2/7/2014 04:45:35 am
Second sentence should read "alerting" not "altering," although I supposed one's mind could be altered by reading that blog...
Reply
!!!!!!!!!!!!!
2/7/2014 04:53:56 am
is SW about to run for public office?
Reply
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
2/7/2014 06:06:10 am
"Guess who" just asked SW about a House run and he turned
Reply
!!!!!!!!!!!!!
2/7/2014 06:08:39 am
Unlike Rep. Newt Gingrich, even though he has a healthy EGO
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
2/7/2014 06:15:25 am
"Don't know anything about the footprints, but I'm skeptical until I see them with my own eyes." Direct Quote by SW on the U.K prints!
RLewis
2/7/2014 06:44:37 am
So, proof that the Smithsonian knew it was authentic is that they made the Cherokee wait "almost three years" before turning it over to them? Does SW think that's a long time to get through government red tape? I would think any government conspirators worth their weight in salt could stretch it out much, much longer. Hell, Wright Patterson still hasn't turned over the Roswell alien bodies and that been over 50 years.
Reply
RLewis
2/7/2014 06:51:19 am
SW's most outrageous comment:
Reply
An Over-Educated Grunt
2/7/2014 07:36:51 am
Also, he has no idea what "peer review" means.
Reply
RLewis
2/7/2014 08:16:13 am
Yeah, I'm done. Evidently since no one has taken his geologist license (is that a thing?) away from him then everything he does is essentially approved by his peers.
An Over-Educated Grunt
2/7/2014 08:27:57 am
Now you're just being silly!
An Over-Educated Grunt
2/7/2014 08:39:49 am
Joking aside, yes, professional licensure is a thing. Off the top of my head, the following professions require licenses in most states: architect, engineer, geologist, plumber, surveyor... the list is far more extensive, but those are the ones I know offhand. Wolter is licensed to practice geology in Minnesota. As I mentioned above, his license expires at the end of June. I expect that he will continue to keep it up, or at least get it switched to the retired list, so he can keep claiming to be a professional geologist and not have someone pull a "gotcha" on him like happened with his degree. I have no problem with him being a PG (professional geologist), or whatever Minnesota calls their acronym for that, and it really does take some serious dedication adding up to about a decade's work, between undergrad and professional-in-training time. It really is an accomplishment, especially the architect one.
RLewis
2/11/2014 02:06:33 am
Looks like some people (not me) spent the weekend on SW's blog trying to explain the importance of REAL peer-review to him. No dice.
An Over-Educated Grunt
2/7/2014 07:19:12 am
Yeah, I'm never, ever hiring Scott Wolter as a geo-consultant, and I'm certainly never hiring him as an expert witness. If he loses his cool that easily when inconsistencies in his reports are pointed out, he isn't a reliable expert witness.
Reply
Walt
2/7/2014 07:29:53 am
I think you've slightly misrepresented AAT's theory on elongated skulls, at least as represented on Ancient Aliens. They accept that most elongated skulls are the result of binding. However, they wonder why the first person to bind her baby's skull did so. Why was an elongated skull desired originally? Their proposal is they were trying to mimic the elongated skulls of the half-alien ruler Akhenaten, and others, I think. Proving their theory wrong requires providing evidence of why elongated skulls were desirable enough to bind, not just proving they're a result of binding.
Reply
2/7/2014 08:03:12 am
It really depends on which ancient astronaut theorist you ask. Yes, on Ancient Aliens they talk about "imitating" the aliens, but other ancient astronaut theorists (not all of them are on Ancient Aliens!) have promoted some (though not all) elongated skulls as Anunnaki-human hybrids.
Reply
2/7/2014 08:04:42 am
Reply
Walt
2/7/2014 08:28:22 am
You had me right up until "circumcision" and "mutilation" then I just started squirming.
A.D.
2/7/2014 08:39:21 am
Don't be fooled this is just another attempt of a "lost white tribe" coming to bring civilizations to the "injuns".They are attempting to prove the elongated skulls are "white people".The constant mention of the "red hair" and "these are not american indians" is a dead giveaway.They are liars plain and simple
Reply
SW's propensity to keep harping back to the superiority of white europeans does make one wonder if SW has any connections with aryan brotherhoods or the kkk. Although It sounds to me as if he just likes stirring up trouble because he feels superior and wants everyone else to believe in it. He does this so well he's been able to get thousands in grant monies to continue to push his agenda of White everything, Indigenous nothing....Again, I believe he has some perverted sense of entitlement, a sense that some political figures keep blowing out of proportion. Makes me wonder who his real buddies are and what their agenda is, after all, he keeps talking about conspiracies, why not make him the center of a big one?
FrankenNewYork
2/9/2014 08:38:26 pm
Ancient Aliens doesn't present a theory to prove wrong, they present conjecture without facts to back it up and at the drop of a hat (as you point out they contradict themselves frequently), or at the first signs of a legitimate challenge they change their premise. Examples Von Daniken's original claim that aliens built the pyramids, because there was no other explanation, has been changed to aliens provided the instructions and the original claim was never stated. And my favorite the decades long insistence that crystal skulls were the product of alien technology because they were so perfectly made no tool marks could be found and that technology does not exist on earth even today! Which after all 12 major skulls have finally been examined and tool marks found on all of them (as well as evidence of fraud in their provenance), has morphed into: just because there are tool marks on them doesn't mean they weren't made by aliens.
Reply
Christy
2/13/2014 12:43:18 pm
It is my understanding that the Paracas skulls only have one parietal plate instead of two (modern humans have two) and also larger orbital holes. If this is true and the DNA evidence points to something other than human, couldn't it be another hominid? Why make the leap to extra-terrestrial?
Reply
A.D
2/13/2014 02:35:30 pm
Foerster is an idiots and doesn't know what the hell he is talking about.He's of a long line of pseudo historian frauds
Dan
2/7/2014 08:34:00 am
Wow, some anonymous person with way more geological knowledge than Wolter just ripped him a new asshole on his blog with regard to his report on the Bat Creek Stone. See it now before he deletes it.
Reply
RLewis
2/7/2014 08:40:08 am
I understand it was just some silly guy.
Reply
An Over-Educated Grunt
2/7/2014 08:57:47 am
Very, very silly. 2/7/2014 08:44:47 am
Honestly, I'm getting confused. Wolter says in his comment of 12:11 PM that his Bat Creek Stone report was peer reviewed? By geologists? How would that have happened if he never submitted it to a journal?
Reply
Matt Mc
2/7/2014 09:09:20 am
Maybe he asked one of his co-workers to look at it, so technically it was reviewed by a peer.
RLewis
2/7/2014 09:35:23 am
The way I red it (and his response to my question) is:
Matt Mc
2/7/2014 10:05:46 am
Okay that make sense.
John R.
2/7/2014 12:06:03 pm
"The Smithsonian will never accept the Bat Creek Stone as geniune no matter how many academic journals I submit my work to".
Amanda
2/10/2014 04:15:54 am
I read Scott's blog entry and I am still REALLY confused over what he's actually talking about when he says "Peer-Reviewed." Several commenters asked him about it too, and his answer was vague.
Amanda
2/10/2014 04:16:22 am
I read Scott's blog entry and I am still REALLY confused over what he's actually talking about when he says "Peer-Reviewed." Several commenters asked him about it too, and his answer was vague.
An Over-Educated Grunt
2/7/2014 08:47:15 am
I've already copped to this above, and I seriously debated pointing it out while I was doing it, so no great loss here - it was me, and no, I don't have way more geological knowledge than Wolter. In straight geology, he could run rings around me for days. I do know how to read an ASTM spec, though, and I'm not dazzled by his "I'm a professional!" claim, since both my grandfathers were in the very first wave of professional engineer licenses back in the '50s, my academic background is stronger than his, complete with extensive education by people who were both professionals AND academics subject to peer review, and (deep breath for spit-take, everyone!) I've JUST about finished up the required professional development time for licensure in Texas. Which means that, hopefully this time next year, I can post as "An Educated Grunt, P.E."
Reply
B L
2/7/2014 04:06:26 pm
He NEEDS the Bat Creek Stone to never be accepted as genuine by the Smithsonian. If they accept it, then he's just another anonymous scientist. If the Smithsonian continues to deem it a fake, then Wolter continues on down the "D" list celebrity tract.
A.D.
2/7/2014 08:34:37 am
This is old news to me.I emailed you about Foerster and Martin Dutre's regarding the Paracas and Nasca culture months ago.Foerster is a liar and fraud.He went on a radio show and lied about the fehren-schmitz et al 2009 study and said they "were not native american" when they actually were as they carried the typical amerindian haplogroups.I sent you a video with geneticist fehren-schmitz who talks about this very study from the nasca-palpa project.I have confronted Foerster before and he ignores and removes comments on his videos..He is being deceptive and in one video he is with the other clown David Childress looking at a mummy and they hinted that it is "caucasian".Foerster always makes videos talking about the "red hair" and thinks they are european though these sneaky racist are careful to not outright expose themselves,but I know their game.These frauds have racial agendas.
Reply
2/7/2014 08:39:51 am
As I mentioned above, I've been following this since 2012, but there usually isn't anything new to say. The DNA claim is a "news peg," but yes he is another in a long line of "theorists" who want to imagine a lost white race ruling the Americas.
Reply
Mike M.
2/7/2014 09:46:36 am
Jason-you mention above, and in a previous post that Scott Wolter published his claims in American Antiquity. Perhaps you meant to say the Ancient American. I have never seen any of Wolter's work in American Antiquity, the journal of the Society for American Archaeology. 2/7/2014 09:48:22 am
You're quite right. I meant the crappy fringe rag, not the journal. I'll fix it.
Armothe
2/7/2014 09:26:31 am
Why are you all that concerned about Scott's credentials in the first place? All of the posts above, as well as the ones on his blog; reek of jealously rather than maintaining an honest approach to academia.
Reply
2/7/2014 09:32:25 am
It's not a question of his right to practice science; rather it's about his refusal to follow the accepted protocols of publicizing scientific findings and then shouting conspiracy when scientists try to review of examine his work. If he's right, there's no reason he can't share why he's right with other scientists in a way that would let them evaluate his work and confirm his findings.
Reply
Armothe
2/7/2014 09:47:22 am
Well so what if he gets offended when people criticize his theories, research and television show. What's it to you anyways? His personality and curiosity is precisely why he has a successful show, or why people read his books. I'd like to think most who watch are of discerning mind and will take any 'conclusions' with a grain of salt. I mean, its not like his speculations are being taught amongst the mainstream. 2/7/2014 09:50:56 am
But isn't that the point, Armothe? He wants his speculations to be taught as fact and plans to lobby Congress to investigate why the Smithsonian won't accept them. This is more than just your average run-of-the-mill fringe speculation.
Armothe
2/7/2014 10:06:33 am
Jason, I think the point of 'America Unearthed' is of more entertainment value, rather than scientific. His plans to lobby Congress are not part of the show and are strictly on him and how he wants to spend his time defending his opinions. 2/7/2014 10:11:07 am
But I am evaluating his claims, not his entertainment value. In the latter regard, he's no Josh Gates.
Matt Mc
2/7/2014 10:31:11 am
Jason you really liked Josh Gates as a host don't you. He was entertaining but I used to get annoyed with his comments he would make to locals, almost making fun of their culture. I know he did it for laughs but I found it a bit offsetting. I will say I met him when I did tape for a Ghost Hunters Halloween show at Fort Delaware and he was a very likeable person defiantly someone who would be fun to hang out with. 2/7/2014 10:35:10 am
Actually, I don't watch that many non-fiction shows of that ilk and couldn't think of any other names off the top of my head. Most of them I know as "that guy," like the one who used to dress like Indiana Jones and do archaeology on the History Channel before it went all aliens. Josh-something I think. Believe it or not, I don't spend all day watching history documentaries!
Matt Mc
2/7/2014 10:49:09 am
I believe it, Sadly I try to watch at least one episode of every new show that come on any of the "Documentary" channels, It helps me keep up with being fresh at work, you never know when a client is going to mention they want something done like X show.
Walt
2/7/2014 11:15:34 am
Matt, Don Wildman from Cities of the Underworld is the host I think Jason should hire for his (non-existent) TV show to debunk things. That'd be a great fit. I see now he's hosting "Off Limits", "Mysteries at the Museum", and "Monumental Mysteries" all on the Travel Channel. I've never seen any, but they sound a little more fringe than I think "Cities of the Underworld" was.
Armothe
2/7/2014 12:34:05 pm
I think if SW claims were not tied to a television show then perhaps we could be a bit more critical. But H2 exists for ratings....and ratings alone. I think we can all agree that the producers gut the footage, insuring the most edgy & perhaps controversial statements remain at the forefront of the 44 minute show to keep viewers coming back. 2/7/2014 12:51:26 pm
Scott Wolter has had plenty of space to share his claims at full length in his books (The Hooked X, From Akhenaten to the Founding Fathers) as well as his Ancient American articles and online. In regard to the Bat Creek Stone, my criticism extends to his report on his website, his Ancient American article, and his discussion in his books.
Joe
2/7/2014 12:53:02 pm
Armothe, 2/7/2014 12:57:07 pm
Joe, you're quite right. The Great Oreo Cookie Conspiracy came from his book, not from TV, and so far his claims that the Native Americans obeyed prophecies left by the Templars (and/or proto-Templars) have also been a radio and book special.
Armothe
2/7/2014 01:04:28 pm
I must confess that I do not follow Mr. Wolter's exploits that closely as it appears most of you do. I did read through The Hooked X and while I don't believe there to be any 'outlandish' claims in the book it does attempt to bridge evidence with speculation. But once again, I consider the book for its entertainment value in that it is whimsically suspicious of the status quo, not a comprehensive exposition of documented manuscripts with intent to take over academia.
yakko
2/7/2014 01:19:47 pm
"Most of them I know as 'that guy,' like the one who used to dress like Indiana Jones and do archaeology on the History Channel before it went all aliens. Josh-something I think."
Harry
2/7/2014 02:49:50 pm
Armothe,
Rev. Phil Gotsch
2/7/2014 04:34:58 pm
Armothe --
Reply
Only Me
2/7/2014 05:59:48 pm
Why not? Your bestest pal in the whole world refuses to let his work be subject to the examination of his peers, so now he's stuck with the court of public opinion. You may not like it, but there's nothing you can do about it.
jad
2/8/2014 12:12:48 am
he's got another problem. the tribe is a bit PO'ed at the same
Armothe
2/8/2014 04:18:41 am
So is this blog indicative of 'peer review'? A bunch of armchair scientists & historians crying foul? Last I checked, nobody is stopping anyone from sincerely visiting these sites or artifacts and performing their own research. Instead, we see a small group of 'History Police' with sour grapes expending time & energy to erase the name of Scott Wolter. I just don't think its the best approach. I'd like to think intellectual discussions over these claims will win the day. 2/8/2014 04:32:15 am
Say what? "Peer review" refers to submitting scientific findings for publication in an academic journal, at which point reviewers with expertise in the field ("peers") review the work prior to publication. If they agree that it appears to have been performed according to accepted methodological standards and contains no egregious errors, it moves on to publication. This is a different concept from criticizing claims after they've been published.
Armothe
2/8/2014 04:48:57 am
Jason, when dealing with 'America Unearthed' I'm guessing peer review isn't an an option since it would simply derail the show - or at least timing thereof. Which is why I classify it as more of entertainment and take it with a grain of salt. As far as his articles, columns and books go...I have no idea if they underwent a peer review prior to publication. I'm not even sure who those peers might be; so again I view such books as entertainment - a brain stimulus. 2/8/2014 04:56:50 am
I appreciate your attempt to grapple with the issue, but the problem isn't mind but his. Wolter claimed that his research had been peer-reviewed, but it has not. That's the crux of the problem: He says things that aren't true.
The Black Hole
2/9/2014 09:40:25 am
That's so dumb. He presents everything on a tv show for everyone to see. So at that point anyone is free to do their own review. Academic or personal. That's such a stupid argument.
Joe
2/7/2014 11:14:03 am
What I don't understand is his claim on the Bat Creek Stone. He states it is 100% authentic but even in his own report he states that additional work needs to be done. Also the geological work doesn't provide any method of dating. From reading the report he still only believes it based on his trust in fringe writers from the 70's on.
Reply
Walt
2/8/2014 07:53:04 am
I think he believes the BCS to be 100% authentic, but hasn't been able to prove it. That's why he suggests the additional tests, to date more objects and determine the composition of others to hopefully give a hint of their age.
Reply
An Over-Educated Grunt
2/8/2014 11:02:10 am
You are correct, the report provides no method of dating. His dating method is based on the assumption that Emmert found the stone inscription-side down under the head of Corpse 1. In that case, it would require the stone to have been placed there at the same time as the body, which could have been dated. Instead what he focuses on is the weathering history of the rock and its various intrusions itself. The extra tests he orders are standard "send me more money" engineering-firm boilerplate. You'd see those on the simplest order you put in with an engineering firm, it's like any academic paper, the last conclusion you put in is always "it needs more research."
Reply
yakko
2/7/2014 12:53:53 pm
So Scott Wolter blows the lid off the Smithsonian's evil plot to suppress information about artifacts like the Ark of the Covenant and the Crystal Skull. Next up: his thorough expose of the nefarious plot by evil mainstream academia to suppress the fact that X does in fact mark the spot!
Reply
KIF
2/7/2014 02:38:14 pm
"America Unearthed" and "Ancient Aliens" are bad, real bad - but they are by no means the worst examples.
Reply
CHV
2/8/2014 11:01:18 am
I'd like to include a snarky comment here about SW, but like fishing with dynamite, it's so easy as to make one feel guilty.
unfortunately naive
2/7/2014 09:30:44 pm
I just watched my first episode of Ancient Aliens a few hours ago. I have to admit I was totally under their spell until I searched it online and found Chris White's debunking documentary which I just completed a few minutes ago. I found the show so entertaining and fascinating, all the supposed "mysteries" of ancient history intrigued me. Then I find out everything they said was utter bullshit. I can't believe that crap like that is allowed to present itself as factual on mainstream tv. I saw the previews for America Unearthed and reading all your comments about it has been very enlightening as well. Wtf History2, I thought you were trustworthy!
Reply
unfortunately naive
2/7/2014 09:43:18 pm
Oh and what makes this really outrageous for me, is that it was my history teacher who suggested I watch. He adores the show and has included AAT here and there in our lessons.At the time I thought he was just trying to be funny. For example chalking up similarities in the creation myths of various cultures to aliens. Oh and the similar mound/pyramid structure found in different cultures? Aliens, according to my teacher. The sad thing is I really don't think he was joking anymore. Now that I think about it he also makes a lot of hyperbolic conjecture about the thoughts and motivations of historical figures.
Reply
unfortunately naive
2/7/2014 10:21:28 pm
Just read SW's angry post and responses to all comments. Wow. Ok I'm just a simple country bumpkin, but even I know that his behavior is really sketchy.
KIF
2/7/2014 11:04:24 pm
" Wtf History2, I thought you were trustworthy"
Reply
KIF
2/7/2014 11:11:33 pm
" Wtf History2, I thought you were trustworthy"
KF
2/7/2014 11:16:14 pm
Kate Bush belongs to the fantasy world
Phillip KM
2/9/2014 10:12:27 am
Why does everyone think that because a tv channel has the word "history" attached to it that it makes them trustworthy. It's a tv channel and a tv show just like the rest!! They need viewers and funding to get ratings!! Otherwise they would be just another Public channel looking for donations to stay afloat.
Amanda
2/10/2014 03:56:39 am
I started to say I'm baffled by comments like Phil's, but then it occurred to me that those of us who still call it The History Channel obviously haven't really been immersed in their programming since around 2009.
CFC
2/8/2014 01:10:20 am
None of Scott Wolter’s theories have been peer-reviewed (including the KRS work). These so-called standards he mentions don’t apply to history, or the inspection of artifacts and archaeological sites. On a radio interview recently he said that the problem is that academics don’t understand and follow the scientific method. I guess this is what he means by that. Just another example of Scott Wolter using his own made up rules rather than established rules and protocols.
Reply
Here's my take on this accusation against the Smithsonian. First, it is largely a publicity stunt. Does he really think anyone is going to "investigate" the Smithsonian on his say so? Of course not. This is addressed to the audience for his AU product, and no-one else. Further, this is evidence that he has run out of "sites" to explore. He has already scraped the bottom of the barrel and people are losing interest. How to branch out in anew direction and attract new viewers? What also piques the interest of those who gravitate to crypto-zoology or crypto-archeology or ancient aliens? Conspiracy Theory? There's a whole audience out there of conspiracy buffs who have had no interest in pre-columbian fringe history. Watch for more and more of this from Scott, we've alredy seen other examples. He will doubtless say something like, "We've done the work and produced the evidence, no need to dwell on that further. Now we have to turn our attention to fighting those who have been suppressing our history!" All entertainment product, all about the $$$
Reply
spookyparadigm
2/8/2014 07:13:20 am
Considering GOP congressmen like Eric Cantor have been conducting assaults on social sciences generally and archaeology specifically, don't be so sure it won't get traction.
Reply
Brian
2/9/2014 10:06:45 am
Losing interest? His second season has gotten more viewers and ratings than the first! And this site just helps it along!
Reply
WellGwhiz
2/8/2014 05:36:47 am
Lets not be to hasty.
Reply
WellGwhiz
2/8/2014 06:15:04 am
Your interpretation seem inconsistent, based on what the un-welcome "peer review" is about. It's about that the BCS is NOT a forgery. You twisted it.
Judith Bennett
2/8/2014 02:00:41 pm
It would be bad enough if Brien Foerster confined himself to testing samples from skulls excavated in the 1920s, but, unfortunately, many of them were unearthed far more recently than that. One of his earlier youtube videos shows him buying a skull from a looter. He goes into a song and dance about the ethics involved, but carefully avoids the main issue that trading in human remains ensures that even more graves will be desecrated.
Reply
Judith Bennett
2/8/2014 02:15:50 pm
And yes, the samples were absolutely exported illegally. To excavate in Peru, or to export archaeological samples, one needs a permit from INC. To obtain said permit you need to be a member of COARPE, the Colegio Profesional de Arqueologios del Peru. Brien isn't listed as a member, not surprising as one needs a licensiado degree to join, basically the equivalent of an American MA in anthropology.
Reply
William M Smith
2/9/2014 04:25:31 am
I have read all the post and see the motive for most is to shoot the messenger and ignore the message. I am not a supporter of SW because he is like a bull in a china shop, however he does make some good points about the so called academic world spending your tax dollars how they see fit. Of course one could say when in Rome do as the Romans do. This may explain why we are 17 trillion in the hole. For the most part without SW this site would have little to talk about.
Reply
WellGwhiz
2/11/2014 02:50:34 am
Wm, I believe you are okay, correct. That the KRS location was mapped.
Reply
Gualt, Franklin
2/9/2014 09:46:34 am
I find it funny how so many people claim they know nothing of America Unearthed, watch the show, look it up, and then post on this site.
Reply
2/9/2014 11:14:00 am
Just so everyone known, many of the hostile and negative comments appearing under a range of aliases are all by one single poster, well known to this blog, masquerading under many names. Further posts from this individual will be deleted for violating my comments policy of 1/24/14.
Reply
Harry
2/9/2014 03:27:16 pm
I posted to Scott Wolter's "angry blog post" about his analysis of the Bat Creek Stone, suggesting a number of potential alternative explanations for his findings consistent with forgery. Later, having reviewed his report on the Bat Creek Stone dated July 14, 2010, I followed up with a further post pointing out that the report does not prove that the Stone is genuine and asking if there was anything I missed that would rebut those possibilities. Here is his reply:
Reply
2/10/2014 05:18:38 am
You will all be interested to know that I have updated this blog post after receiving word that Wolter is wrong and that the Bat Creek Stone remains U.S. government property. The Smithsonian merely loaned the stone to the Cherokee for a temporary exhibit. Again: Wolter is wrong, according to archaeologist Brad Lepper, who spoke with the Smithsonian's Bruce D. Smith this weekend.
Reply
Rowena Fibbs
2/10/2014 11:43:44 am
Is anyone going to hip Wolter to this fact? Because he's certainly implying in his blog that the BCS is being returning for good. There's a difference between something being repatriated and something on loan.
Reply
Rev. Phil Gotsch
2/11/2014 04:01:25 pm
Unfortunately far too many institutions -- even The Smithsonian, apparently !!! -- do seem to imagine that they DO *own* history itself, and so are *FREE* to rob graves and retain grave goods as if *those* (indigenous) peoples have NO rights to their own patrimony … ???
Reply
2/11/2014 10:31:13 pm
You know as well as I do that standards changed over time, no one robs graves today. The governing legislation is now NAGRPA, and under it Native tribes can request repatriation of material collected in the past. The Bat Creek Stone does not fall under this policy because repatriation requires demonstrating cultural affiliation, and even under the fringe fantasy version of history, it was carved by Jews rather than Native Americans. As a hoax, though, it has no relationship to Native Americans at all.
Clint Knapp
2/12/2014 10:23:15 am
As though the "elongated skull" discussion wasn't weird enough... on last night's Coast to Coast (Feb. 11th 2014) featured a tag-team interview with Brien Foerster and L.A. Marzuli. They promised DNA results, but really only said they entrusted the samples with "a major DNA researcher in the US" who told them there was nothing Homo Sapiens, Neanderthal, or Denisovian in the sample. The rest of the show was much the same bad science and wild speculation one has come to expect of Marzuli- who dominates the night with his usual bunk about red hair, unsourced giant claims (specifically 8.5-9' elongated-skull giants with six fingers per hand), and Nephilim nonsesne.
Reply
2/12/2014 11:04:35 am
Jos. 11:21-22 records the Hebrews destroying the Anakites, who being giants are sometimes identified as the Nephilim. I believe this is the genocide in question.
Reply
Clint Knapp
2/12/2014 12:12:48 pm
Seems likely, knowing Marzuli's M.O. He dropped it in the middle of a lot of other examples of men fighting giants. Naturally Lovelock Cave got a bit of focus, and he cryptically tried to relate that specific story to a widespread pandemic of "oral traditions" about native people throughout the Americas fighting "red-haired giant cannibals"- though the Lovelock story is the only one I've ever heard any of those details show up in and he wouldn't explain further where any of these supposed tales came from.
A.D.
2/12/2014 06:56:05 pm
Red Haired Aryan Giants building megalith structures all over the americas who were genocided by the savage indian "invaders" = Mound Builder Myth all over again.
Reply
A.D.
2/12/2014 06:59:34 pm
Who were the Nasca?Population Dynamics in Pre-Columbian Southern Peru Revealed by Ancient DNA Analyses
A.D.
2/12/2014 07:01:10 pm
"Combined with knowledge of the cultural and ecological history the population genetic data can be translated to reconstruct the population dynamic processes of the Palpa region for the investigated time frame.The genetic similarity of the Paracas populations from the Palpa area and the peninsula,and also the low genetic distance between both allows the conclusion that the Paracas culture of the southern Peruvian cast formed a uniform population.The results also show that there is a high gene flow,thus migration frequency,within the distribution area of the the Paracas culture but no significant genetic exchange with the surrounding populations,for example,from the Andean highlands."
A.D.
2/12/2014 07:02:22 pm
"The pre-Columbian populations of the southern Peruvian coast significantly differ from the recent Peruvian and ancient highland populations although they are very similar to the recent Native American populations of Middle and South Chile (ef. Fig 10.1;Fehren-Schmitz 2008).Mitochondrial distribution patterns of today's coastal Peru therefore have to be a result of cultural and political processes succeeding the time span investigated in this study.The high frequency of haplogroup B in recent indigenous Peruvian populations suggest that the observed genetic changes are best explained by the expansions of the vast-reaching highland empires,especially the Inca.This assumption is supported by the affinity of the recent Chilean populations to the pre-Columbian Peruvian coastal population.The maximum southward geographic extension of the Inca empire is congruent with the recent border between populations exhibiting mitochondrial distribution patterns similar to recent Peruvian populations and Chilean populations that exhibit the ancient coastal patterns (Fig, 10.1)"
A.D.
2/12/2014 08:15:52 pm
I've been following this for a while and Foerster has learned well from his master Lloyd Pye
Reply
Your comment will be posted after it is approved.
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorI am an author and researcher focusing on pop culture, science, and history. Bylines: New Republic, Esquire, Slate, etc. There's more about me in the About Jason tab. Newsletters
Enter your email below to subscribe to my newsletter for updates on my latest projects, blog posts, and activities, and subscribe to Culture & Curiosities, my Substack newsletter.
Categories
All
Terms & ConditionsPlease read all applicable terms and conditions before posting a comment on this blog. Posting a comment constitutes your agreement to abide by the terms and conditions linked herein.
Archives
February 2025
|