Scott Wolter: J. Hutton Pulitzer Doesn't Have "Any Credibility" on Oak Island Sword Issue

5/29/2016

Have you seen the bombastic YouTube video that J. Hutton Pulitzer put out as the first effort from his and Scott Wolter’s new XpLrR company? (Or, as Wolter capitalizes it, Xplrr.)

I was struck by the fact that Pulitzer marked his account YouTube with his old Treasure Force logo—and still features “Expedition History” as his video highlight. Branding! I wonder who did the opening and closing graphics? They seem professionally done, so they can’t be Pulitzer’s own work, and they clearly came from a different source than the amateurish video that they were dropped into. The closing graphic looks embarrassed to have been forced into a silly contortion after Pulitzer dropped it in and decided to use one of the “fancy” transitions in his video software.

I mention the video because it focuses on Oak Island, Pulitzer’s obsession and the reason for his effort to claim that a modern souvenir sword was actually a Roman-era artifact lost by a Classical expedition to Oak Island. Given that this is Pulitzer’s major claim, and that Oak Island has been not just his justification for “investigating” history but also his claim to television fame, I would have thought that he and his new business partner Scott Wolter might have discussed the subject. But on his blog this week Wolter essentially cut his partner off at the knees by admitting that Pulitzer is full of it:

First, I have not read anything other than cursory information about the sword. Therefore, I cannot weigh in intelligently one way or the other. However, I don't give either side of the argument any credibility until it can be definitively established the artifact has a clean chain of custody and provenance. Until that happens, opinions expressed either way are meaningless.

Now, he is of course wrong: The chain of custody is irrelevant if analysis demonstrates that the sword is not ancient. Logic alone would therefore refute the claim. But the broader point is that Wolter and Pulitzer don’t seem to be coordinating on even the most basic level. He said he doesn’t give Pulitzer “any credibility”! So far, it looks like Pulitzer gained Wolter’s “credentials” and TV “credibility” while Wolter got access to … what exactly? Presumably Pulitzer’s deep pockets. What a joke.

Indeed, yesterday afternoon Hutton Pulitzer and Scott Wolter released another podcast in which they obsess over the H2 network as part of what seems to be their plan to provide episode by episode commentary on America Unearthed. This podcast went all the way back to the pilot of December 2012, but it highlights what Pulitzer gets out of the partnership: TV credibility. What’s interesting to me is that A+E Networks, the owner of History and H2, once ordered me to cease and desist selling a book that didn’t feature any of their intellectual property for fear of “confusion.” How long will they let these two complain about History while using the History logo on their products? Indeed, if the podcast is attempting to make a profit for their business by creating a 39-episode enhanced guide to America Unearthed by the host of the show—not criticism of it, which is protected by law—this skirts dangerously close to the kind of “confusion” that A+E Networks alleged that I caused. It really seems like Pulitzer and Wolter are trying to piggyback on the History channel, right down to the use of the History color scheme in their own XpLrR logo.

In the podcast, Wolter again accuses the U.S. Park Service of working to suppress the truth about the Maya, and he claims that “academics” met in secret with the Park Service to stop them. “I don’t know what those discussions are, but clearly it had to be something like that,” he said. Wolter also repeats the conspiracy theory that the Smithsonian excavated Native mounds to “cleanse and sanitize” them of pre-Columbian European artifacts. He adds that there is a “sacred paradigm” that Columbus was the first European to reach America. “Nobody was here before Chris, so it’s our sovereign right to take this land,” he said. This is (a) wrong because no one though Columbus was first since the 1820s and (b) American nationalists proposed all manner of ancient European colonization efforts specifically to justify taking Native American lands. For example, Andrew Jackson—a president of the United States—argued that the existence of the lost, presumably white, race of the Mound Builders proved that Native Americans were late interlopers who could justifiably be removed from their land to “restore” it to white people.

Even though the podcast was supposed to focus on the question of whether the Maya visited Georgia, the two men devoted most of the podcast to rhapsodizing about the exploratory prowess of white men. Pulitzer’s conservative views are on full display when he asks his listeners—twice!—to cover their ears, apologizing that he needed to use the word “vagina” in quoting an archaeological description of a Nova Scotia petroglyph. Moments earlier he had no trouble describing the sexual prowess of men leaving “genetic evidence” of their cross-continental explorations among the “beautiful women.”

Near the end, Pulitzer segues into a rant about the need to preserve monuments to Confederate generals, which blindsided Wolter, who wasn’t prepared for the political rant. Pulitzer said that because he is Jewish he spends a great deal of time researching anti-Israel leftist academics, which is how he discovered, or so he says, that a group of archaeologists and anthropologists want to remove a Confederate monument from Stone Mountain, Georgia. The carving was made more than a century ago by the artist behind Mount Rushmore, and it served as the site of the founding of the modern Ku Klux Klan. In 2013 a petition was circulated to destroy the monument as racist, but the state of Georgia denied the petition on the grounds that it would violate Georgia law and would be destroying art history. In 2015, the NAACP proposed removing the Confederate flag from the site, but the legislature voted it down.

Pulitzer alleges that anthropologists and archaeologists banded together “over the Thanksgiving holiday” in 2015 to push for the destruction of the monument, which conflates the 2013 and 2015 events and seems to equate the NAACP with archaeologists. I am not aware of an anthropological organization that called for the destruction of the monument. He later amends this to “activists” which included some professors.

Wolter is baffled by Pulitzer’s claims and had difficulty understanding why Pulitzer mixed this up with a separate allegation that university professors refused to “display” Israeli artifacts over Israeli treatment of Palestinians. I had a hard time figuring out what Pulitzer was talking about. Indeed, the largest collection of Israeli artifacts in the world is set to go on display in Washington, at the new Bible museum founded by the people behind Hobby Lobby and designed by the same guy who worked on the Creation Museum. I finally realized what he was talking about when Pulitzer claimed, McCarthy-like, to have a list of “every” anthropologist and archaeologist who opposes Israel. He is referring to a resolution before the American Anthropological Association to officially boycott Israeli academic institutions over alleged human rights issues. The proposal is currently being voted on, and results will not be released until after voting closes on May 31.

The issue is political, but Pulitzer frames it as an effort to suppress Israeli—by which he means Biblical—history in favor of Palestinian—by which he means Islamic—views. Wolter, unaware of what Pulitzer is talking about, agrees that academics are trying to suppress the “truth” about the Bible, particularly the reality behind the life of Christ. “I can understand why people would be resistant for religious reasons, for political reasons, for territorial reasons. But that doesn’t make it right,” he said.

Wolter concludes with the dumbass claim that the Observatory at Chichen Itza is “strikingly similar” to the Newport Tower—even though they don’t look anything alike—because they contain “small windows”!

El Caracol (the Observatory), Chichen Itza

The Old Windmill (the Newport Tower), Rhode Island

A Note about My Newsletter

Finally today, as most of you know, I have a weekly newsletter, and it currently has a few thousand subscribers. I’m brainstorming some thoughts about how to improve the newsletter while balancing the amount of work it takes with the number of readers who actually read it. I have a couple of different ideas, but I’m not sure which would go over best:

Reduce the newsletter to biweekly while increasing the length of the newsletter and perhaps adding an exclusive commentary or bonus content.
Reduce the newsletter to monthly but produce it as a formatted magazine-style PDF with some of my best blog posts of the month and additional content.
Keep a weekly newsletter that links to my blog posts for the week as a “digest” but deliver a formatted PDF once per month.
Keep everything the way it is.

If you have an opinion, feel free to let me know using the survey form below:

96 Comments

5/29/2016 09:36:21 am

I went to Wolter's blogsite and read what he said. Jason, he quite clearly, stated that he had not researched this sword and the 'credibility' of Hutton, he also extended to the other side of the issue. It really would help if you would quote the whole sentence.

Jason Colavito link

5/29/2016 09:39:40 am

I did quote the whole sentence, and several more. It's in the block quote in green. My headline is intentionally provocative because it makes the point of highlighting tensions between Wolter and his partner, Pulitzer, who are (after all) supposed to be working together.

5/29/2016 09:46:09 am

that is just it, Jason- and yes you did quote- Wolter is not just cutting Hutton on the knees-- he says he does not give Either side credibility...he is effectively playing the middle...which fits in quite nicely with our political parties this year.

5/29/2016 10:57:23 am

Wolter's willful ignorance isn't a matter of playing to the middle. It's a matter of playing to his own best interests by trying to mask his lack of critical thought. That's pretty much SOP with him.

With one presidential candidate who is a misogynistic, xenophobic racist and another who is a democratic socialist, I'm not sure how you see that as playing to the middle either. Though there is a lot of willfull ignorance among politicians as well.

Time Machine

5/29/2016 01:27:43 pm

Monica Lewinsky for President

Clint Knapp

5/30/2016 07:33:51 am

If Wolter gives neither side of Swordgate any credibility, and his new business partner is one of those sides, then it is correct to say that Wolter does not give Pulitzer any credibility in the matter. He does caveat that he has his own list of requirements for proving credibility and applies it to both sides of the discussion, but that caveat itself does not negate the fact he's already written off any credibility Pulitzer might have had going into the statement.

It's not an outright condemnation of Pulitzer's argument, and no one's trying to say it is, but it is an awkward position to take when their joint venture as hero-bros-of-history-rewriting hinges on the two being able to come together on some sort of issue instead of lining up the ways the other is wrong.

Rose McDonald

5/30/2016 12:33:31 pm

J.J. Although you might have read what Wolter said, it appears, by your comment, that you didn't actually read what Jason posted.

John Beals

2/24/2018 10:44:57 am

As a follow up to Lewis and Clarke episode. I may have some interesting info re: the where abouts Lewis's Masonic Chain. I do not blog or fase book

Charles Gaulke

5/29/2016 10:29:23 am

Did these two talk to each other at all before starting up their partnership? It's pretty early for the seams to be showing this badly.

That video is really something. I don't know what's more bizarre: his apparent amazement that water spreading out as it flows from a stream to the shore might form something vaguely triangular ("or a pyramid," ha); his belief that special video enhancements were necessary to show the presence of a (presumably surveyed) road; or his assumption that a road was more likely to be built through a swamp, reshaping it, than to be built adjacent to it on firmer ground.

No, wait: It's that he manages to repeat himself so many times in a video barely two minutes long. Even cable can't pack it in that dense.

Clete

5/29/2016 10:35:39 am

Don't think this "partnership" is going to last very long. It's like a Hollywood marriage, done for only a short term ego boost for both parties and soon to be dissolved with both of the "partners" dishing the other.

Jonathan Feinstein

5/29/2016 06:25:21 pm

Yep. I think the countdown has already started on this one.

Joe Scales

5/29/2016 11:02:49 am

If only the Kensington Rune Stone had a clean chain of custody and provenance, knowing how and where it was kept at certain times and what was done to clean and preserve it over the last century. Then Wolter could weigh in on it...

Wolter has sunk to a new low...Pulitzer/Philjaw... and most likely out of desperation knowing his television days are most certainly over. Apparently, given his recent blog postings, he's lost mind as well. Get well soon Scott. Seriously.

Shane Sullivan

5/29/2016 02:00:17 pm

Xplrr? What is that, a Lin Carter character?

"In this exciting instalment of the Thongor series, our barbaric hero is transported to the magical land of Zorp, where he must battle terrifying Plogs, insidious Merds, and deadly Blarvoxes, his adventure culminating in a climactic battle with the evil wizard Xplrr!"

Mike Morgan

5/29/2016 03:09:44 pm

"How long will they let these two complain about History while using the History logo on their products?"

Until Steve exhausts all his legalistic shenanigans?

Only Me

5/29/2016 04:11:34 pm

Like I mentioned on a previous blog post:

"Unless they get their act together, I have the impression both Pulitzer and Wolter are partners only in the sense they both are trying to produce content for online streaming. I don't get the impression they will actually be working together *on* that content and will most likely continue on their individual paths."

It seems the first cracks in their partnership are developing.

{First, I have not read anything other than cursory information about the sword. Therefore, I cannot weigh in intelligently one way or the other.}

Replace sword with any other topic and you get a nice summary of Wolter's understanding of history. By the way, who needs W&P's commentary on America Unearthed when they can read the episode reviews here?

John

5/29/2016 10:43:22 pm

Did anyone catch this conversation in the replies of Wolter's blog?:

"AnonymousMay 27, 2016 at 8:13 AM

Didn't your new XplrR partner recently try to pass off a souvenir sword as being a relic from ancient Rome? What is your position on that?

Scott WolterMay 27, 2016 at 8:23 AM

Anonymous,

First, I have not read anything other than cursory information about the sword. Therefore, I cannot weigh in intelligently one way or the other. However, I don't give either side of the argument any credibility until it can be definitively established the artifact has a clean chain of custody and provenance. Until that happens, opinions expressed either way are meaningless.

As a side note, the tone of your comment suggests a less than objective mindset. Can you please identify yourself in future comments?

AnonymousMay 27, 2016 at 11:24 AM

I'm your conscience.

Scott WolterMay 27, 2016 at 2:20 PM

Harold,

It's amazing the information forensics on IP addresses can shed isn't it? My conscience? That's a pretty bold statement considering you don't have one. You are nothing more than an arrogant fool with a twisted and sanctimonious sense of self. Apparently, you have nothing better to do with your time than troll a former colleague you can't help but obsess over.

I look forward to seeing you again so I can deliver you an important message... Maybe at the Fringe Festival sometime? ;-)

AnonymousMay 28, 2016 at 7:41 AM

Wow. Outing an anonymous blog visitor by tracking his IP address?! Then you've know all along that the Joe Scales who has responded in past blogs is NOT Richard Nielsen, but you've mislead your followers anyway. I wonder what this might mean about some of the other things you've asked us to believe....

Bart

Scott WolterMay 28, 2016 at 8:31 AM

Bart,

Actually, only recently was I able to confirm the identity of "Mr. Scales." Due to confidentiality reasons I can't discuss the details behind his creepy, obsessive behavior, but if you've read this blog you've seen plenty of examples of his cyber stalking. Most of his nastiest comments were never posted and I'm sure if you knew the whole story you'd be as disgusted as I am.

I also have reason to believe "Joe" has been in contact with Nielsen and Williams on a different blog to coordinate their attacks on my research which in the end resulted in their committing academic fraud.

I haven't misled anybody, it is those who post comments as "Anonymous" or under a fake name that intentionally deceive. If you want to make accusations and question others, the least you can do is use your real name instead of hiding in the shadows behind a keyboard throwing darts like a coward.

You are free to believe whatever you want. What I share here, in my papers and in my books are what I have concluded is the truth based on my interpretation of the facts.

I'm all done with the sick and creepy behavior of the likes of "Joe Scales." Either put your name behind your comments or crawl back into the basement and troll elsewhere.

Patrick SMay 29, 2016 at 8:49 AM

Scott Wolter, formerly known as a forensic geologist, now also known as a forensic IP sleuth!

Nice work, Scott. What you did was long overdue.

Patrick S."

Looks like Wolter steeped to a new low. Who would've thought that would happen? :/ Wolter really is a creep. Tracking people through some sleezy program that track's people's ip addresses? And he has the audacity to call other people "stalkers"? He is now paranoid to a point that he is now tracking other people's information that criticize him. This is some Nixon shit right here.

5/29/2016 11:20:41 pm

Now this may come as a shock to you John, but Wolter is lying. Some sort of scare tactic no doubt, but complete fabrication on his part on all counts. I quit posting over there when he continued to refer to me as Richard Nielsen and he broke the terms of his own truce by falling back on a familiar tact. Name calling. The only posts of mine he wouldn't print were simply arguments he couldn't respond intelligently to that would have caused him even more embarrassment.

Perhaps he's trying to lure me back. But as I know he follows the blog comments here with great interest, I can only respond as follows:

Sticks and stones Wolter.
Sticks and stones...

5/30/2016 02:44:50 am

Joe, did you ever try to prove in your replies that weren't Dick Neilson? I know that that is probably the last thing you want to do, since that opens up another doorway to Wolter harassing you even more through other means, but I have seen his replies to you and they come off really disgusting. I have never seen anyone as paranoid as him. I would love to see what Neilson has to say about Wolter accusing him of being you as well, since I'm sure he would love to prove to Wolter's followers how he lies to them about who exactly is posting on his blog. Like I have said before I wouldn't be shocked if some of the people on the blog is actually Wolter trying to bolster his claim how he has so many fans praising his work.

5/30/2016 03:17:17 am

Quoting Nielsen from the article "Science, Archaeology and the Human Condition", 26 Nov 2010, www.midwesternepigraphic.org:

"I personally can spend no more time on correcting the record on KRS research. Several years of work has already been wasted."

I find it strange that Wolter would assume Joe was Nielsen, when Nielsen himself made it clear he was no longer interested in the whole controversy six years ago.

5/30/2016 10:01:31 am

I never felt the need to prove anything regarding Wolter's disingenuous allegations in regard to Nielsen posting as "Joe Scales". It was ridiculous on its face, and though I have no faith in Wolter's mental capacity, it should have been clear by my posting record here and elsewhere that predated any venture of mine onto his blog. I may have protested initially, but he wouldn't print any rational rebuttal. So I simply told him I wouldn't post over there anymore if he was going to put on a show for the handful of legitimate fans there that might follow him and keep referring to me as Nielsen to wow them. He did stop... but that didn't last long at all, and he went right back to it in short order. Now he's pretending that all that didn't happen, that instead I'm in league with Nielsen and that his forensic skills have uncovered a new identity for me... confidential, of course. This is all classic Orwellian-type propaganda, but in a comic, bungling sense.

I do believe that Wolter likes to host controversy on his site to bring more traffic there. I mean... all the time he complains about trolls and such, but content doesn't automatically get published there. He has to approve each and every post before it goes public. So he'll post only critiques that he feels he can rise above with his go-to arsenal of fallacies. Once you get to a certain point however, and he can't help but look foolish, he'll stop posting your replies and call you names.

There is one contributor there named Lesley, that he seems to give more leeway too. However I think it's only because Wolter's too dense to realize just how cutting Lesley's remarks really are. Someone there did step in once, to defend Mrs. Wolter's book. Heck, maybe it was Mrs. Wolter herself... as I've long ago concluded that the only reason Wolter continues to allow anonymous posting on his blog is because many of those there that seem to support him are probably from the known rogue gallery of his most ardent insiders. But they stooped to calling Lesley names as well and I haven't seen him there since.

Without detractors, Wolter's blog would be a rather boring read. I suggest a boycott accordingly. Give him what he wants. Don't bother to contribute or critique him there. Especially now when he'll use the opportunity to outright lie and turn a legitimate concern into mystery, intrigue and conspiracy. I see Pulitzer/Philjaw might already be having an influence over him...

Harold Edwards

5/30/2016 03:19:25 pm

My name is Harold Edwards. I worked for Mr. Wolter from 2001 to 2003. I have now, and had during that time period, a Ph.D. in geology with an emphasis in mineralogy-petrology from the University of Minnesota. Like Wolter I currently hold a P.G. licence from the State of Minnesota, number 43208. I am not God’s gift to geology, but I know something about it, and I give you all this not to brag but because shortly I will elaborate on Mr. Wolter’s favorite topic, “peer review.”

I am the “Harold” Wolter is referring to. Although I have visited his blog as well as this one, I have never posted anything on either blog under my name, another name, or as anonymous. Let me remind both Mr. Wolter and Mr. Colavito these blogs are open to the public and anyone who has internet access can legally view them. If the authors wish otherwise there are ways to restrict access. Furthermore, it may be an ethical violation on my part to make snarky comments on other professionals, geologists or others, that cannot be supported.

On Mr. Wolter’s May 2016 blog, someone claimed to be his “conscience.” Undoubtedly that got under his skin. Nonetheless I did not write whatever it was that offended him. How or why Mr. Wolter identified me I do not know. If he uses malware--spyware--that is a crime in Minnesota and an ethical violation as well. One now has to ask: is it safe to visit his blog and/or his company American Petrographic Services’s website? I would caution people not to visit either site until there is some clarification on the matter.

In 2003 when Mr. Wolter returned from Maine, he invited a local TV station to film his and his lab’s work on the Kensington Rune Stone. The artifact was then in his lab. It was at that moment that I knew it was fake. The inscription is about 2mm deep, and there is a calcite layer on the front of the artifact that is about 3mm thick. Part of the inscription runs through it. If you look at a closeup of the doubled dot character in the calcite layer, you will notice it is made with a conical punch. The impression is as fresh as if it were carved this very morning. Conical punches are made by placing a steel rod in a lathe, spinning it, and using a tool such as a grinding stone to create the conical bevel. You can buy one in any hardware store. You could have bought a similar item in 1898. There are illustrations of them in the Sears and Roebuck catalogues of the day. Sears catalogues were ubiquitous in farm households back then. When the film crew was visiting, Mr. Wolter, he had in his storeroom a few yards away, two marble tombstones he had brought back with him from Maine. The inscriptions on them were from the early 1860's. About half of the inscriptions were weathered away. One could barely read the dates. Shortly after that I made a back-of-the-envelope calculation of the weathering rate of calcite and told Mr. Wolter that the calcite layer would have been weathered away in a couple of hundred years. As to the burial protecting the calcite, burial in 4-6" of top soil in the root ball of an aspen tree would have caused it to weather away in even less time. Atmospheric CO2 levels are today about 380 ppm. Under an aspen CO2 ranges from 10,000 to 30,000 ppm. Therefore the calcite layer would have been gone in a few decades. One hundred years of progress in karst geology has taught us that calcite is very vulnerable to underground weathering, much more so than at the surface of the earth. As they say in the South, “This hound don’t hunt.” I not only told Mr. Wolter this, but I gave him many technical papers on this and other aspects of stone weathering. None of it he mentioned or acknowledged.

Mr. Wolter continually mis-characterizes “peer review.” “Peer review” is a term of art used in academic publishing. Here the editor gives a manuscript to two or more experts unknown to the author, the so-called peers. They then vet the paper which if they approve, gets published. Mr. Wolter’s archaeology work is not usually peer reviewed. However he claims he has passed his manuscripts to his employees, business partners, and ex-professors who then vetted them. He in effect is redefining “peer review.” When Mr. Wolter brags about this type of peer review, he never mentions me–or for that matter the Swedish panel of geologists who wrote him an extensive critique in 2004. He was not pleased with my “peer review” in 2003. In September Mr. Wolter terminated my employment at American Petrographic Services.

I am now writing a paper on the lack of weathering of the artifact. However my reason for visiting his blog had nothing to do with the Kensington Stone or my paper. Mr. Wolter’s May blog is on his concrete chapter in the book Structural Condition Assessment edited by Robert T. Ratay, and published by Wiley

5/30/2016 03:23:37 pm

Here is the rest of my comment, sorry for the length. There must be a word limit.

Mr. Wolter’s May blog is on his concrete chapter in the book Structural Condition Assessment edited by Robert T. Ratay, and published by Wiley in 2005. In April I had a look at Mr. Wolter’s 2006 paper,”Structural Evaluation of Concrete” in the American Society of Civil Engineers Proceedings: Structures Congress 2006. This is published online. You can get a copy for $30.00. If you examine copies of both documents you will see that the 2006 paper is virtually a word-for-word copy of his chapter in the book leaving out the illustrations and some minor parts of the text. Mr. Wolter does not give any internal citations to his previous work other than as his only reference. Also the 2006 paper does not state that it is essentially a republication of an earlier work by another publisher or indicate that the ASCE was given any permission to use this text by Wiley, the copyright holder. This practice is typically called “self-plagiarism.” It is frowned upon in academia. Current ASCE guidelines do not permit it, but things may have been different in 2006. Also Mr. Wolter may have some extraordinary explanation as to the legitimacy of his behavior, so one cannot at present make too much of it. I have alerted the ASCE of this problem. I will let the process play itself out. No doubt Mr. Wolter made his 2006 article to impress his civil engineering clients. Will they be impressed now? These people are his bread-and-butter, and he is biting their hands.

If you read Mr. Wolter’s May blog you will see that a young person named Wendy writes Mr. Wolter that he is her hero. I have the sad duty to tell young Wendy that he is not the kind of person she should emulate. Mr. Wolter does not have feet of clay, he has feet of excrement.

Harold Edwards, Ph.D., P.G.

5/30/2016 06:58:37 pm

That's interesting to hear. Thanks for the information Harold. Unfortunately, there must be fans of Scott's who read Jason's site because one of them must have caught wind of your post and Scott posted this reply to her:

"Scott WolterMay 30, 2016 at 3:42 PM
Mindy McCarthy,

I'm not going to bother posting either of Mr. Edwards' negative comments published elsewhere as it's a waste of the readers of this blog's time. Edwards is a failed academic who has an 13 year-old axe to grind against me. His geological opinions on the Kensington Rune Stone are flawed to say the least. He, like Richard Nielsen and Henrik Williams are driven to try and put down the KRS by personal issues and not legitimate scientific inquiry. Edwards' claims he's going to write a paper about what he says he observed on the KRS 15 years ago. I've written several papers and three books on my research in that time. If he had anything meaningful to contribute he would have done it by now.

Let's let these three sad souls fade into the sunset and move on with more positive commentary. The readers of this blog will no longer have to endure comments from "Joe Scales" or Mr. Edwards ever again.

I appreciate your support Mindy, but I'm not going to dignify this man's disgusting comments with a response."

http://scottwolteranswers.blogspot.com/2016/05/structual-condition-assessment-handbook.html

6/2/2016 02:56:47 am

Harold Edwards;
I'm wondering if this Wendy person is the same Wendy who posted a long and lavish commentary about what a wonderful person Pulitzer is. She claims to have been present in a hotel room when JHP was trying to sell the Oak Island producer, Kevin Burns,on a plan to purchase the souvenir sword and/or feature it and Mr. P. prominently on the show. The consensus of those responding was that "Wendy" was a pseudonym, and the writer's style, and spelling errors, were curiously similar to those of JHP.
Maybe we should ask Mr. Wolter to do an IP search on Wendy.

Gina Torresso

6/2/2016 02:13:22 pm

Harold,
I wanted to express my gratitude for taking the time out to share this information. First hand experiences tells the real story.

Jason, as always Article is on point. Thank You !!!

Carl Morrey

6/6/2016 04:17:47 am

Hi Harold I'm writing this to see if you could provide any answers to some of the questions I asked Mr Wolter in regards to the following point in a reply on his blog site "Dating the rocks wouldn't tell us much as C-14 wouldn't work on anything older than about 50,000 years. We would need to employ other dating methods on the rocks. However, we can date organics build-up in post glacial environments to age date when the glaciers receded in those areas." I've left a reply but it's not appeared on the site nor as of yet received any response. I did point out that C14 only works on organic material and has nothing to do with the date ranges C14 provides, he mentions testing the surrounding deposits which could be done but does an archaeological report of the site exist that shows the location and stratification of the site to allow the testing of the correct deposits?, would dating the stone itself achieve anything than providing the date the stone was formed?, I know of potassium/argon dating used to find the origins of stone from a site in Norway and strontium/oxygen testing in the UK to show migrations through geographical regions, has the KRS been shown to be from that particular area? Thanks for reading
Carl

6/6/2016 08:11:51 am

The Kensington Rune Stone has not been dated by any method. We do not know what outcrop the rock has come from. It is a sedimentary rock, a variety of sandstone. Sedimentary rocks are typically dated by the fossils they contain. None have been found in the KRS so far, but I do not think anyone has had a careful look at the artifact for that purpose. Radiometric dating typically would only give the age of the sediments that made up the rock. These could be millions or even billions of years older. Sorry for Mr. Wolter frustrating you. It is a waste of time to post on his blog. He will manipulate or delete your postings. He manipulates the argument and data to only favor his opinions. If he allows opposing opinions, he will belittle their authors. All of this is unethical science.

5/30/2016 09:15:34 pm

Harold, I for one, would be very interested in reading your paper on the lack of weathering on the KRS = will you make this available soon, and how do we get it from you? thank-you

5/31/2016 02:20:14 pm

Thanks for your interest. If the manuscript were sent to an editor today, it would probably take between 6 months and a year before it was published. Realistically, I need about another month to clean it up. It is long--about 47 pages, single spaced, exclusive of a lot of illustrations and extensive references. An editor might insist on cutting much of it. That is why in part I give more details and references to my replies. That way you can have something to hold on to. Sorry for the bad news. I would like to be free of it too!

5/31/2016 11:01:41 am

Thanks for that Dr. Edwards. I fear I am the reason you have been brought into this, but solely from coincidence. You see, I have been debating with Wolter on his blog, along with others, over the last several months over such issues as the pyrite, the calcite, and of course his pitiful equivocations in regard to proper peer review. The more I dug deeper, the more he believed that ghosts from his past were revisiting him, as the same arguments against him resurfaced. What Wolter fails to understand is that rational inquiry can develop independently when confronted with obvious failures in such scientific/historic/archeological endeavors of which he dabbles. I know and you know, that you were not my source in my recent challenges to him. Richard Nielsen's web site sent me in the right directions to do my own research, but I have never communicated with him by any means.

Wolter is playing for his fans and outright lying about his IP expertise. I would not fear of any sort of spyware or malware use on his part guarding his site. He is bluffing in this regard. In one way it may have succeeded in bringing you out, if that was his wish. However, this scheme of his has certainly backfired with you coming here and laying the cards on the table. I do understand why you would be ambivalent in this regard, as Wolter's only defense is to badmouth you on his blog. One day he's going to get sued for defamation over this, and his failings will be on trial for all to see. That's the only reason from this point forward to visit his blog. To seek evidence of defamation. Trying to argue with him there is pointless and will only end with him calling you names. He is a fraud. He is a liar. And I can say these things because they are true. That defense will not be available to him.

5/31/2016 01:32:13 pm

Thank you for your kind words. I would not speculate about what Mr. Wolter can or cannot do with computers. He opened the door. Let him explain.

5/31/2016 02:21:38 pm

Well Dr. Edwards, you know he's bluffing because you did not post to his blog as his "conscience". Might you have used that expression before sometime in the past when you knew him? Perhaps that's what triggered his accusation. Internet sleuthing certainly did not.

5/31/2016 04:02:09 pm

You have the disease. You want to be smarter than Mr. Wolter. You can never be smarter than Mr. Wolter. He will not let you. Evidently you and others started to cover much of the same argumentation I made with him in 2003, so when someone claimed to be his conscience he overreacted. He projected that it was me doing it to him.

Look at Figure 19 on page 24 of his and Dr. Nielsen’s book, Nielsen, Richard and Scott Wolter (2006), The Kensington Rune Stone Compelling New Evidence, Lake Superior Agate Publishing, 574 pages. It is a copy of a John Steward photo taken in 1899. The caption reads: “The split side’s inscription retooling is apparent by the lighter color of the characters in this photograph taken by John F. Steward in March 1899.” There is more but I will get to that in a moment. In September of 2003 I noticed a similar photo taken by APS and presented in the 2001 report: Wolter, Scott (2001), “Kensington Runestone Investigation” APS Job No. 10-01120, unpublished report of American Petrographic Services, Inc. to Kensington Runestone Foundation, Alexandria, Mn. 10 pages with appendices. [Copy in the Minnesota Historical Society collections] This photo was in color and showed an even blue coloration across that side. At that time and now I thought how remarkably like New York bluestones the artifact was. I then started inquiring about them from the New York Geological Survey. I also had a copy of the 1880 U.S. Census paper on the stone trade in the United States. Hawes, George W. (1884), Report on the Building Stones of the United States and Statistics of the Quarry Industry for 1880, U.S. Census Office, 410 pages. I gave a copy of that report to Mr. Wolter.

In the late 19th Century there was an extensive trade in graywackes in the United States. Most of these were slabs used as sidewalks in the eastern part of the country. Sandstone sidewalks from Ohio were used in St. Paul at that time. The practice was discontinued around WWI when this function was taken over by concrete. The artifact may be an imported bluestone. If not, at least it and bluestones are kissing cousins! Also the artifact was probably exposed to some weathering during 1899-1907 when it was used as a stepping stone to Ohman’s granary. Comparing the Steward photo with the APS photo I thought perhaps some material had been broken off the edge near the X-shaped rune. The even patina on the 2001 photo then would indicate that weathering over 8 years was sufficient to account for the coloration on the surface. I might be wrong. Too late now, the artifact has a chocolate color.

When I told this to Mr. Wolter he laughed at me and said the Steward photo was retouched and therefore I was wrong. I had a copy of his draft paper and pointed out to him that he was relying on that same photo to prove his retooling hypothesis and that this was unethical. He just laughed at me and said that is what lawyers always do. I said, no they do not. That is subornation of perjury. To get caught at that is disbarment and worse! To me, lying about one’s data is one of the most serious offenses a scientist can make, so I then communicated all this to the geologist in New York and Mr. Wolter’s superiors. Mr. Wolter fired me. He then added a sentence to his paper: “However caution must be exercised when examining the four Steward photographs because there is evidence that some of the runes may have been retouched.” I have a copy of the first draft.

5/31/2016 05:59:55 pm

The "disease". That is a wonderful way of putting it and I take it in good spirit with much introspection. You are brave Dr. Edwards for coming out with all this, because we know the way Wolter trashes his critics rather than respond to them with reason. The only downside is that here, you're preaching to the choir, so to speak. But to read the opinions of not only a licensed geologist, but someone with a PhD in geology who had an opportunity to study the KRS and offer serious questions about its legitimacy, and all communicated to Wolter himself while he was forming his own opinions... well, that comes as a welcome sign of relief. This is Wolter's worst nightmare, and a most deserved one at that.

Let us hope that your paper, once peer reviewed, stands as a record to counter Wolter's mendacity and confirmation bias in regard to the KRS. Though that will never stop him as he is full on board with the fringe in making up whatever history they wish, so long as it sells books and gets them on television, it will act to sway those taking more than a casual glance at his malfeasance.

As for what other means you may be able to use in order to lodge legitimate complaints with his licensing board, he has long used such license to imply that he is better suited to dictate to other academic specialties his brand of history, whether it be linguistics, anthropology or archaeology. Just with his last blog entry, he even says as much: "Keep in mind the process of investigation into the Kensington Rune Stone, and other mysterious artifacts and sites, is no different than process of investigating problems with concrete, mortar, rock etc." Thus he is holding out his license as a professional geologist to make him appear as an expert in other specialties well beyond him to further his fringe career.

On a side note, were you fortunate enough to do any work on the 9-11 concrete samples sent to APS?

5/31/2016 07:44:18 pm

I did work on the Pentagon project. Mr. Wolter graciously gave me a job when I badly needed one in late 2001. I only did flunky work. I did not interact with the Pentagon or see any communications from it. Mr. Wolter on his May blog claimed the work was classified. That is first I heard of it. I believe one must get a security clearance to work on classified projects. Somehow magically I must have gotten one. It is so secret that I did not even know it. However going forward, I will treat the work as classified until I learn more. If you Google

Statement Of Qualif cations For Testing and Inspection Services for Port’s Runway 16C/34C Project, RFQ No. 00318200-14

[the “i” in “Qualifications” is missing in the original.]

for the Port of Seattle, you can download a proposal for an airport runway by Kleinfelder. Page 90 of the pdf has a copy of Mr. Wolter’s 2014 vita. For education he only lists: “Bachelor’s Degree, Geology, University of Minnesota-Duluth, 1982" Mr. Wolter is qualified to do geology. If he were to come to some object in the middle of the road, he could indeed say “That is a rock!” And he could request payment for his great acumen.

Based on this education what he can do beyond that is problematic. Of course he may be a fabulous autodidact. We all have to start somewhere. How Mr. Wolter can deal with dotted R’s in a language he does not understand when he can barely deal with dotted I’s in one he can, I do not know. Then he has the temerity to insult experts in these very disciplines he dabbles in: “They are lying rascals who should have their funding and whatnots cut off.”

Here is another Minnesota Administrative Rule:

1805.0400 IMPROPER SOLICITATION OF EMPLOYMENT. A licensee shall seek and engage in only the professional work or employment the professional is competent and qualified to perform by reason of education, training, or experience. A licensee shall not falsify or misrepresent the extent of the licensee's education, training, experience, or qualifications to any person or to the public; nor misrepresent the extent of the licensee's responsibility in connection with any prior employment. A licensee shall not transmit, distribute, or publish or allow to be transmitted, distributed, or published, any false or misleading information regarding the licensee's own qualifications, training, or experience or that of his or her employer, employees, associates, or joint venturers.

Sic transit gloria mundi

6/1/2016 10:55:03 am

A follow-up on the Pentagon Project Dr. Edwards. Did APS really super-glue the concrete samples back together to analyze them? Now that could very well be common and proper practice, but on its face just seems strange.

6/1/2016 12:09:07 pm

You can stop the Dr. Edwards stuff and call me Harold. Remember I am a "failed academic." Super glue is great for gluing together small inorganic pieces that can fit together like jigsaw puzzle pieces. It is strong, hardens quickly, and in the short period resistant to water. After the pieces are glued together they will be ground and polished under a stream of water. It also has low viscosity so it wets throughout the broken surfaces. You can clamp the pieces with tape or even your fingers. The glue dries quickly. If you do the latter wear plastic gloves! If your fingers get stuck, you can douse everything with acetone. However that will undo your gluing efforts.

Jerky

6/3/2016 04:58:03 pm

" When the film crew was visiting, Mr. Wolter, he had in his storeroom a few yards away, two marble tombstones he had brought back with him from Maine. The inscriptions on them were from the early 1860's. About half of the inscriptions were weathered away. One could barely read the dates."

Interesting, Mr. Harold Edwards, do you know how Scott Wolter obtained the two tombstones from Maine? I only aske because if they where from a grave...

""§507-A. Interference with cemetery or burial ground

1. No person may intentionally or knowingly destroy, mutilate, deface, injure or remove any tomb, monument, gravestone, marker or other structure placed or designed as a memorial for the dead, or any portion or fragment of any such memorial, or any fence, railing, curb or other enclosure for the burial of the dead.

[ 1987, c. 326, §2 (NEW) .]

2. Subsection 1 does not apply to any person:

A. Who performs an act as authorized under Title 13, section 1371; or [1987, c. 326, §2 (NEW).]

B. Who meets the requirements governing eminent domain as established by state or federal law. [1987, c. 326, §2 (NEW).]

[ 1987, c. 326, §2 (NEW) .]

3. Any person who violates subsection 1 commits a Class D crime.

§507-B. Illegal possession or sale of gravestones

1. No person may possess, sell, attempt to sell, offer for sale, transfer or dispose of any tomb, monument, gravestone, marker or other structure placed or designed as a memorial for the dead, or any portion or fragment of any such memorial, knowing or having reasonable cause to know that it has been illegally removed from a cemetery or burial ground.

[ 1987, c. 326, §2 (NEW) .]

2. Any person who violates subsection 1 commits a Class C crime.

[ 1987, c. 326, §2 (NEW) .]

3. Any person who violates subsection 1 is liable to the following for triple damages to be recovered in a civil action:

A. The municipality or, in the case of unorganized territory, the county in which the cemetery or burial ground is located; [1987, c. 326, §2 (NEW).]

B. A cemetery association authorized to bring suit and recover damages by the municipality or, in the case of unorganized territory, the county in which the cemetery or burial ground is located; or [1987, c. 326, §2 (NEW).]

C. A historical society authorized to bring suit and recover damages by the municipality or, in the case of unorganized territory, the county in which the cemetery or burial ground is located. [1987, c. 326, §2 (NEW).]"

There's always the chance they where showcase stones used as displays showcaseing a mamorical stone maker's work outside his shop. But I doubt you will find one from the early 1860's in an antique shop.

6/3/2016 05:01:04 pm

mamorical should say memorial.

6/3/2016 05:53:59 pm

I do not know if Mr. Wolter had permission to remove the marble tombstones or even take the chips he took from the slate tombstones he subsequently analyzed. He will have to explain that. He makes no acknowledgments in his paper or book.

I have been several times to the Minneapolis Pioneers and Soldiers Memorial Cemetery which opened in 1853. It no longer has new burials. I only photograph and do no testing. The Veterans administration will replace tombstones of veterans once their condition is too poor to recognize the person's particulars. One grave in Minneapolis is from a veteran of the War of 1812 and had his stone replace in the 1930's. Another veteran's stone was replaced a year ago and looks spanking new. Also family members can replace stones that are in poor condition or when more individuals are buried in the same plot.

6/3/2016 06:29:39 pm

That's the reason I quoted both parts of the law, the first half deals with removal of tombstones, the latter half deals with selling, disposing and ownership of tombstones.

5/30/2016 09:48:43 pm

If Mr. Wolter will not address Mindy McCarthy’s concerns, I will. Mr. Wolter makes no substantive rebuttal of my comments. He just launches into an ad hominem attack on me. I am not interested in Wolter the man: I am interested in Wolter the petrographer. Mr. Wolter claimed to use biotite and pyrite weathering to date the inscription of the Kensington Rune Stone. Biotite is too complicated for him, so I will leave it for another day except to note that it is not mineral. It is a family of minerals. Phlogopite, annite, siderophyllite, and eastonite easily wiggled through his fingers. One cannot expect him to be expert in biotite since he is not a mineralogist. Pyrite on the other hand, he is an expert in. He must be and cannot deny it.

Mr. Wolter is or was a mineral and/or fossil dealer. As such he well knows that some specimens of pyrite or pyritized fossils spontaneously decay in collections while others are pristine for many decades. It is a common problem, and I have seen it with my own eyes in the mineral collection of the University of Minnesota geology department. You can read about it in these references: Michlovic, Michael G. (2010), “Geology and the Age of the Kensington Inscription,” The Minnesota Archaeologist, vol 68, pp. 139-160. By the way, this is an excellent exposition of Wolter’s shoddy workmanship. Then there is Gordon, Samuel G. (1947) “Preservation of Specimens of Marcasite and Pyrite,” The American Mineralogist, vol. 32, p. 589.

Mr. Wolter is also an expert on concrete. Here too pyrite is a notorious problem. The classic paper on this is Midgley, H.G. (1958), “The Staining of Concrete by Pyrite,” Magazine of Concrete Research, vol. 10, pp. 75-78. Midgley discusses a reactive pyrite and a non-reactive pyrite. The first easily decays in a short period of time. The second is very stable. Which one is in the Kensington Rune Stone or the AVM Stone Mr. Wolter compares it to? Mr. Wolter does not tell us. Mr. Wolter’s 2014 vita showed him a member of the A.S.T.M. Committee for Qualification of Petrographers and Technicians. He therefore must be expert in all this. He constantly refers to the method, ASTM (2003) Designation: C 295 – 03, Standard Guide for Petrographic Examination of Aggregates for Concrete, 8 pages. This in turn refers to ASTM (2005) Designation: C 294 – 05, Standard Descriptive Nomenclature for Constituents of Concrete Aggregates, 10 pages. C294 states: "Iron Sulfide Minerals. . .Marcasite readily oxidizes with the liberation of sulfuric acid and formation of iron oxides, hydroxides, and, to a much smaller extent, sulfates; pyrite and pyrrhotite do so less readily. Marcasite and certain forms of pyrite and pyrrhotite are reactive in mortar and concrete, producing a brown stain accompanied by a volume increase that has been reported as one source of popouts in concrete." (Emphasis added.) ASTM C294 p. 4. When I worked at Mr. Wolter’s lab they did about one petrographic analysis of concrete aggregates a week. We had to report any pyrite present.

Over one hundred years ago Geikie in his classic 1880 paper,“Rock-Weathering as Illustrated in Edinburgh Churchyards,” gave an example of the weathering of pyrite in a slate tombstone: “It is a fine-grained, rather soft rock, containing scattered cubes of pyrites, and capable of being readily dressed into thin smooth slabs. A tombstone of this material, erected in the old burying-ground at Peterhead, sometime between 1785 and 1790, retains its lettering as sharp and smooth as if only recently incised. Yet the stone is soft enough to be easily cut with the knife. The cubes of pyrites have resisted weathering so well that a mere thin film of brown hydrous peroxide conceals the brassy undecomposed sulphide from view. The slate is slightly stained yellow round each cube or kernel of pyrites, but its general smooth surface is not affected. The lapse of nearly a century has produced scarcely any change upon this stone, while neighbouring tablets of white marble, 100 to 150 years old, present rough granular surfaces and half-effaced though still legible inscriptions.” Geikie p. 532. I gave Mr. Wolter a copy of this paper in 2003. He does not cite it or any paper whatsoever on pyrite’s weathering characteristics in any of his works. No geologist in his right mind would ever use pyrite to determine weathering rates. It is too fickle and unreliable for this. How can Mr. Wolter in his day job as the fearless defender of concrete worry about pyrite prematurely weathering while in his night job as archaeologist extra ordinaire have amnesia and think that pyrite weathers slowly? Mr. Wolter, we are all ears!

5/30/2016 11:42:36 pm

Harold, I very much appreciate the information you have on this subject. After reading the third paragraph of your post where you speak of the staining of minerals and concrete, can I presume that you are aware of the mould that Wolter commissioned of the KRS, which resulted in the artifact becoming stained? If you are, I would love to know, based on your knowledge and expertise, how much it hampers further research done on it.

5/31/2016 02:14:18 pm

The staining of the artifact was an unfortunate event. This artifact even if fake is very valuable. I would expect it would fetch some millions of dollars at auction if sold today. This staining has damaged it and reduced its value. In late August–early September of 2003 the KRS was at American Petrographic Services. From there it was sent to Stockholm shortly thereafter. On September 4, I took over 60 color photographs of the artifact that showed its color to be a chocolate brown. I do not personally know how it came to that color. Mr. Wolter was present at that time and knew or should have known that it was brown in color. When it arrived in Sweden evidently everyone–Dr. Nielsen and the Swedish team from the National History Museum–were surprised. They were expecting the color to be blue-gray. Again, Mr. Wolter knew the color was brown. Yet in his paper that he read to the Swedish museum personnel and others, dated October 9, 2003, on page 7 in the caption for Figure 4: "The face side is mostly a bluish-gray color with intermittent grayish-tan areas. . . " Wolter, Scott (2003), “Geology of the Kensington Rune Stone,” Address given in Stockholm, Sweden, 56, pages [Copy in the Minnesota Historical Society collections] Again Mr. Wolter repeats this on page 15 in 2006 in his and Dr. Nielsen’s book. Nielsen, Richard and Scott Wolter (2006), The Kensington Rune Stone Compelling New Evidence, Lake Superior Agate Publishing, 574 pages. [Pages 13-47 are mostly a verbatim reprinting of Wolter’s 2003 paper.]

Obviously Mr. Wolter is misstating facts about the color of the artifact. This is most troubling. Mr. Wolter is a forensic geologist whose geopowers should have made him instantly note the color change in the artifact. Is he, was he color blind? Was he careless? Did he suppress the fact of a color change to conceal his involvement with the problem? Did Mr. Wolter have written permission to make plaster castes of the artifact? The Runestone Museum Foundation in Alexandria owns the copyrights to its form and image. Making unauthorized castes is a form of theft. If Mr. Wolter had nothing to do with the staining of the artifact he should have notified the Museums in Alexandria and Stockholm of the color change. Did he? If he had a hand in damaging the artifact, he should have come forward and put it right. Did he? Mr. Wolter and his company APS hold out that they can do petrography of archaeological artifacts. They seek the business. What responsible curator of any museum would entrust his or her artifacts with Mr. Wolter or his company? Mr. Wolter needs to explain himself.

It might be possible to clean the surface using organic solvents or a cocktail of organic solvents. These are flammable and explosive. They are toxic and carcinogenic. The work would have to be done under a hood with an explosion proof exhaust. The sandstone (graywacke) that makes up most of the artifact is porous and would absorb these solvents. It would have to be vented for a considerable length of time. Otherwise personnel at the museum might become ill. Finally, what would the end result be? At best it would be a cosmetic approximation to its original state whatever that was. How would we know? Any further work on its patina or color would have to take this into account. It would limited and questionable.

In 2000 Mr. Wolter took many digital color photographs of the KRS. When I was at his lab, the practice was to download these from the camera to Photoshop and adjust the color and contrast. This “corrected” image was then saved and the original deleted. This was poor practice. I gave his lab manager, Gerard Moulzolf, an FBI white paper outlining best practices. The original should always be retained so any subsequent images can be compared with it. Mr. Wolter holds himself out as an expert witness. What does he say on the witness stand when cross-examined about his altering photographic images? That the alterations are minor? How could he prove it when he has tossed the original? This practice if he continued it, undermines his credibility.

5/31/2016 04:23:38 am

@ Harold

And I would also like to know (if you are allowed to or are comfortable with sharing) if you could explain what was Wolter's behavior like over the course of your career at his firm and how exactly did he change over that time if he ever did. Also, what did you exactly say in your peer review in regard to his work on the KRS? I understand if you can't say anything as a professional, and I will respect your decision if you do not wish to say anything over the matter. I hope you understand why I'm curious over the matter as it's very rare to see someone who worked for Wolter, during the time he started his work on the KRS, come out against him.

5/31/2016 04:44:31 pm

Minnesota Administrative Rules:

1805.0500 FALSE OR MALICIOUS STATEMENTS. A licensee shall make no false or malicious statements which may have the effect, directly or indirectly, or by implication, of injuring the personal or professional reputation or business of another member of the profession.

I have made statements elsewhere in this blog that addresses your concerns. I rest on their being true. Mr. Wolter has made a living for the past decade of going up and down this land trashing other people’s professional reputations. He is open and notorious about it. The Board of AELSLAGID has not bothered to stop him. Maybe they do not know. Here is another rule:

1805.0600 KNOWLEDGE OF IMPROPER CONDUCT BY OTHERS. A licensee who has knowledge or reasonable grounds for believing that another member of the profession has violated any statute or rule regulating the practice of the profession shall have the duty of presenting such information to the board. A licensee, when questioned concerning any alleged violation on the part of another person by any member or authorized representative of the board commissioned or delegated to conduct an official inquiry, shall neither fail nor refuse to divulge such information as the licensee may have relative thereto.

No other professional in Minnesota has complained. Are they all brain dead?

All the stuff from 2003 is too stale to bring before the Board. However, I have complained about Mr. Wolter to the American Society of Civil Engineers on his self-plagiarism. I have complained to the State of Tennessee about his possible unlicensed practice of geology there during his Bat Creek Stone project. If the State of Tennessee does not care, then neither can Minnesota on this issue. If any of these agencies take action, I will send the complaint to the Board. I have tried to get others damaged by Mr. Wolter to file complaints. They will not. How then can I? The rules are well meaning, but they are Catch-22. We all have dirty hands.

Tom

5/31/2016 07:06:31 pm

Researching books written about the KRS has discovered that there have been at least 5 negative molds pulled from the KRS “Master Stone” in the last Century - 1938, 1941, 1948, 1965, and 2003. Each time it caused both physical and chemical damage to the KRS Master Stone, but the specific degree of damage each event caused is unknown and unknowable at this point.

The mold-making process involves multiple steps. First there is a deep chemical and physical cleaning of the Master Stone to remove any dirt, debris, and oil so that mold release can be applied. Secondly, one or more layers of mold release chemicals are applied and allowed to settle or cure. Next, multiple layers of mold compound are applied to create a thick and rigid mold, this is allowed to cure. The cured mold halves are then popped from the Master Stone and another deep chemical and physical cleaning is done to remove any residual molding compound and all the mold release compound. One can only imagine the impact these various mold-making sessions and various cleanings have had to the integrity of the original 1898 KRS surface.

The specific details of how each molding session was performed is not well documented, but it is fair to say that commonplace sulfuric acid based cleaners were used in most cases. Sulfuric acid is used in most cleansers including dish soap and you can even buy 98% pure sulfuric acid at local home centers with a pH near zero. A study of biotite mica has indicated that it dissolves nearly instantly in sulfuric acid solution. The supposition here is that the degradation of biotite mica measured in 2001 on the man-made surfaces was not exclusively natural. It was more likely mostly caused by the various deep cleanings and mold-making events over the last century.

EXAMPLE ... 1941: The managing editor of the Minnesota Archeologist, R.H. Landon Ph.D., has the stone coated with engine oil and scrubbed with a powerful solvent, in an attempt to "clean" it. No one knows how much damage this may have caused to the testable features of the stone's surface."

The cleaning in 1941 of the KRS might have removed any evidence of patina and weathering according to Dr. R. H. Landon, Plant Physiologist of the University of Minnesota, who also had professional training in geology and petrology.

Quoting Wahlgren (1958: 66) on R. H. Landon (1954), “Landon reports that he had three replica casts of the Kensington stone made by an artificer of the Minnesota Historical Society, in the course of which work the stone was thoroughly coated with engine oil.” Quoting Holand (1962: 67), “… and in examining the stone afterwards Dr. R. H. Landon says, ‘… several gallons of petroleum ether was used with the result that the stone was cleaner than it ever had been. The oil softened any adherent material, and the ether carried it away. A careful inspection of the inscription, including use of a microscope showed a complete absence of any trace of weathering or patina. … The cuts were as fresh as if they had been made the day before ...‘”

THE IMPACT OF ALL THIS PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL ABUSE EXPERIENCED BY THE KRS SINCE 1898 CAN'T BE IGNORED IN MAKING A SCIENTIFIC CONCLUSION OF RELATIVE AGE!

5/31/2016 12:15:36 am

Reading some of the exchanges between fringe theorists and their supporters (?) I've reached the conclusion that there are a lot of extremely fragile, over-blown egos in the fringe community. Jason's title for this blog post addresses Wolter's comment that Pulitzer doesn't have any credibility...et cetera, Are we to assume by his own statement that Wolter thinks he does?

Gunn link

5/31/2016 12:37:18 am

If I may add my opinion in here, it seems to be useless to make age-comparison attempts between completely different rock types, especially under different or unknown weathering conditions. For example, gravestones made of marble make poor comparison models against greywacke, which is characterized for its hardness.

Also, I think the KRS was probably erected as a memorial stone, not buried as a land-claim, so that a portion of its time since 1362 was likely above-ground, and a portion below ground. How long was the KRS upright before it fell over or was felled over? No one knows.

However, guesses can be made because of the reported depth of discovery...rather shallow, only several inches from the surface, which would suggest that the memorial stood upright for a considerable length of time; maybe the stone was upright for several hundred years before becoming buried; maybe it was protected by a canopy of forestation for many of those years. Maybe not. But again, since we don't the details of the environment the KRS existed in since 1362, it is utterly useless to make age comparison attempts--and especially using different rock types.

However, it seems important to recall that Geologist Winchell before Wolter noticed weathering sufficient to put the artifact well before the era of Scandinavian pioneering (late 1800's). Unfortunately for Mr. Edwards, I think Wolter was correct--as was Winchell before him--about the KRS being "too old" to have been hoaxed. But, beyond that simplistic analysis, nothing else is certain...basically, because the exact environment the KRS aged in is uncertain.

5/31/2016 01:40:52 am

So Gunn, are you now disavowing using Scott Wolter's "geological" findings to provide proof of dating and authenticity of the KRS and now only basing your belief in it's authenticity solely upon it's inscribed date?

Edward N.

5/31/2016 04:00:01 am

@ Gunn

In regards to Winchell's take on the KRS, I remember reading Professor Paul Weiblen say in his concluesion of his 2008 report of the KRS the following:

"I am of the same mind as Winchell who concluded that study of physical aspects of the KRS will probably not contribute much to establishing the authenticity of the runes."

This quote can be found in the following link:

http://richardnielsen.org//PDFs/Runestone%20Museum%20Rpt%20062608.pdf

I can't say for sure where Weiblen found this conclusion by Winchell but it's saying a lot after reading the following report by Weiblen early on in the investigation:

http://www.richardnielsen.org//PDFs/Weiblen%20(2001)%201%20to%2045,%20Appendices%201%20and%203%208MB.pdf

5/31/2016 04:08:00 am

*conclusion

5/31/2016 10:43:33 am

Winchell most importantly left final word on the authenticity of the KRS to the Swedish linguists. When they didn't jump on board the Minnesota Historical Society didn't either. Winchell also saw the carved runes as rather fresh; especially in the calcite, which troubled him. To allow for this, that's where the whole buried under the subsurface came about as pure supposition presented as fact. His committee report was sloppy and self-contradicting. He favored certain witnesses over others, and his interview of Ohman was translated for him by famed KRS promoter Hjalmar Holand. Winchell also was not without fault himself, later famously falling for the hoaxed Kansas Paleoliths.

5/31/2016 07:30:00 pm

Joe, your rapid name changes are kind of weird, from Joe to John to Mike, etc., but I guess that's one way of getting in a few extra words of support. No matter to me.

Winchell did not leave the final word over the runestone's authenticity to Swedish linguists. The KRS was a victim of circumstances, wherein too much emphasis was awkwardly left to linguists, as though by default. You can research what happened...what a travesty! We have recently seen another awkward attempt by linguists to downplay the KRS, and this is unfortunate.

The Minnesota Historical Society had early on been clearly in favor of the KRS's being genuine, and then hemmed and hawed after ill-informed linguists ended up being able to give too much weight to the issues revolving around the KRS. Much more is known now, and we should be willing to recognize new runic insights that correct earlier misconceptions. If I may say so, the mysterious "lake with two skerries" has now been found, also, which lends credibility to the message on the KRS.

I don't find it necessary to hinge my belief in the KRS on geological study alone, nor on runic study alone. There is also the history of the find, including the histories of specific men and women of good repute (who have been fiendishly tarnished in favor of a hoax).

But, now, there is also the abundance of Norse evidences in this region...artifact after artifact, clearly associated with past Norse expeditions--plural. There are also very real petroglyphs across the border in SD which are clearly Scandinavian, and obviously extremely aged. Finally, there is the Copper Harbor Sailing Boat petroglyph, with snake-heads at each end, to prove Norse origin. (You may see an image of this at my website.)

No meanness intended here, but in my opinion, Wolter needs the KRS much more than the KRS needs him.

In the end, when the KRS is better recognized as being truly authentic, many people will remember that Wolter--though disliked on this blog--helped bring this important national treasure to a limelight not previously achieved, except, perhaps, by H. Holand.

- Gunn

5/31/2016 10:13:53 pm

Gunn,
I have only posted here as Joe Scales. If you feel certain in your accusation, I'm sure Jason has the means to verify otherwise. However, we could put a wager on it. You name the amount, we both send it to Jason and then he gives the verdict and I collect your money.

Read Winchell's signed committee report's final recommendations. They most certainly did leave the final say to the Swedish linguists despite what Winchell might have felt personally at the time.

It's funny how you only look to the words of the KRS to verify only certain things, when together they make no sense for the time alleged. Then there is of course the calcite...

David Childress' Neckfat

5/31/2016 01:48:39 pm

When you're done with the important work of suppressing Wolter and Pulitzer - a dangerous assignment that is definitely within the charter of the Nation Park Service - I have another top secret assignment for the Park Ranger Strike Team. These two bears, code names Yogi and Boo-Boo, are dangerously close to discover the links between the Templars, Nephilim, and picnic baskets.
- Ranger Smith, Freemason level 33

5/31/2016 04:54:32 pm

How did you happen to get the code names of J. Hutton Pulitzer (Yogi) and Scott Wolter (Boo-boo)?

5/31/2016 10:56:52 pm

InvisibleJenn May 31, 2016 at 12:28 AM

This article was brought to my attention by a friend. I found it incredibly interesting! It really highlights the dynamics of Sweden and how the political system has spent the past nearly 100 years trying to eradicate anything that doesn't fit in with the government'should agenda.it also highlights the fact that languages, both written and spoken, evolve over time.

https://redice.tv/news/isolated-people-in-sweden-used-runes-up-until-1900-still-speak-old-norse



Scott Wolter May 31, 2016 at 8:38 AM

InvisibleJenn,

This is exactly what I've been trying to articulate (not very well apparently) for a long time; that there is essentially a government mandate in Sweden that the Kensington Rune Stone is a hoax. This partly explained the non-scientific and as evidenced most recently, nonsensical behavior of scholars like Swedish professor Henrik Williams, who resorted to academic fraud to maintain the Swedish paradigm regarding the Kensington Rune Stone.

As many who have followed this blog can attest, the negative reactive to the voluminous factual evidence, presented by myself and others over the past few years, that is consistent with the authenticity of the KRS has reached the level of religious fanaticism. Some people's beliefs, although Williams knows the KRS is genuine, have clouded their judgment to the point where they behave irrationally.

Recently, Sweden and the University of the Minnesota, supported the lecture tour of an academic who wrote a book that brings absolutely nothing of tangible value to the KRS discussion, yet a platform for this uninformed "scholar" to offer his unsupported negative opinion to a wide audience in Minnesota. The question is why? The answer appears to be to further the mandate set by Sweden and academia here in the U.S.

It's time to hold both parties accountable and let the factual evidence speak instead of people with miss-guided political agendas.

http://scottwolteranswers.blogspot.com/2016/05/structual-condition-assessment-handbook.html

6/1/2016 02:04:36 am

Wolter really has no understanding of hypocrisy, does he?

Why are the critics guilty of "religious fanaticism" but his fanboy defenders are not? Why is he not guilty of the same "religious fanaticism" in his attitude towards academia, government and the Smithsonian?

How is he not irrational and exhibiting nonsensical behavior?

Why is he, who brings nothing of tangible value to history, upset that someone who doesn't agree with his assessment of the KRS is given a platform...when he has been given multiple platforms to spout his unsupported bullshit theories?

Yes, Scott Wolter, let the factual evidence speak instead of just you.

Joe Scales link

6/1/2016 10:34:01 am

I wasn't going to bother going to Invisible's link... as I didn't think it would logically lead to Wolter's overblown conclusions. But I went anyway... and yeah... there's just no rational link whatsoever between a country's action in rejecting a minority dialect being part of school curriculum as compared to academics with a superior knowledge base, abundance of field experience and a proper methodology achieved from years of schooling at fully accredited institutions rejecting farfetched, speculative dribble from a "runic cowboy" such as Wolter. Certainly this is no evidence of a vast Swedish governmental conspiracy to deny Wolter his due as he would have his readers believe.

As Professor Henrik Williams has made clear, "As a Swede I would be delighted if an object from the 14th century was found in Minnesota, proving that my ancestors were there before other Europeans. After all, the Icelanders lived on the east coast of Canada already around the year 1000, so why not Swedes in the Midwest a few hundred years later? But, according to Niven (Niven Sinclair in his foreword to Scott Wolter’s Hooked X book), I much prefer to let things stand as they are and I am not to be trusted to investigate things like the KRS. It is much better done by a geologist with no expertise in runology and no knowledge at all about Scandinavian languages, neither old nor modern."

6/1/2016 10:21:15 am

When Winchell vetted Olaf Ohman, the discoverer of the Kensington Rune Stone, in 1910 he found a copy of the 1882 edition of Carl Rosander’s Den Kunskapsrike Skolemastarn (The Well-Informed Schoolmaster). It is what we today would call a desk encyclopedia, a thick volume that is a miscellany of topics. It has chapter on the history of the Swedish language with as section on runes. That copy had Ohman’s signature, the date March 2, 1891, and “Kensington.” This information is from page 76 in Blegen, Theodore C. (1968), The Kensington Rune Stone: New Light on an Old Riddle, Minnesota Historical Society, St. Paul, 212 pages. This is a wonderful resource. (Blegen also quotes Winchell’s field notes in their entirety.) The Swedish have put Rosander online so you can see it for yourself. You can use the Google Chrome browser’s translate function to get the gist of the content.

When confronted with Rosander and other material in his possession by Winchell, Ohman said "It was because he had learned it in school in Sweden. Every school boy, and every Swede and Norwegian, knows something about runes, but not so as to use them." This is on page 242 of Minnesota Historical Society Museum Committee, (1915) “The Kensington Rune Stone Preliminary Report,” in Minnesota Historical Collections, Minnesota Historical Society, vol 15, St. Paul, pp. 221-286.

Mr. Wolter does not speak any of these languages. Neither do I. We both have to rely on other experts. If your young daughter were sick, vomiting her guts out and with a high fever would you take her to a medical doctor or to the man down the street who repairs lawnmowers in his garage? Who do you go to? Here are three excellent references in English on the language of the inscription on the Kensington Rune Stone–they are spread about 50 years apart:

Flom, George T. (1910), The Kensington Rune-Stone: An Address, Illinois State Historical Society, Springfield, Illinois. 43 pages. Flom was a contemporary of Ohman and Winchell. He gives a more cogent geological analysis of the artifact than Winchell even though Winchell was the geologist and Flom was not. Flom also interviewed Ohman and gives some of this information. Finally Flom has a good black and white photo of the artifact in 1910. I think it is the same as in the Minnesota Historical Society volume.

Moltke, Erik (1952), “The Kensington Stone,” Bulletin of the Massachusetts Archaeological Society, vol 13, pp. 33-37. Moltke is wonderful because he gives you the “flavor” of the text. Something you cannot get unless you understand the languages. Have you ever talked at length with a foreigner who knows only a little English? After a while it literally hurts to listen to him.

Williams, Henrik (2012), “The Kensington Runestone: Fact and Fiction,” The Swedish-American Historical Quarterly, vol. 63, pp. 3-22. This will give you current scholarly opinion on the matter. Dr. Williams holds the chair for Scandinavian Languages at Uppsala University in Sweden and is one of the editors of Futhark: International Journal of Runic Studies, the leading journal on the topic.

You are a smart person. You can read all of this for yourself. You can use Google Scholar to download free copies of these articles. The real stuff is out there if you want it.

For some strange reason, Mr. Wolter hates Dr. Williams. When he comes over for his lecture tour, maybe Williams can stop in St. Paul and give Wolter a Swedish massage. It would do wonders for Wolter’s circulation. Maybe Wolter’s brain would then start working again. Miracles can happen!

6/1/2016 10:50:10 am

I was wondering Dr. Edwards, if you had ever come across a newspaper clipping in possession of the Minnesota Historical Society allegedly found in Ohman's scrapbook containing an article from a Swedish newspaper from 1867 in regard to a rune stone/grave stone found beneath a tree, tangled in its roots from a couple centuries before that? There's more information about this on the Viking Answer Lady Webpage: http://www.vikinganswerlady.com/Kensington.shtml

6/1/2016 01:05:11 pm

I do not know about Ohman’s scrapbook. However the collection of the Minnesota Historical Society–which is in St. Paul–are open to the public, so anyone so interested can inspect it and copy its pages.

I am a physical scientist. All the discussion here so far on the Kensington Rune Stone is verbal. You must see the pictures! Just this one would do: I have photo I have taken recently of two marble tombstones about 2 feet apart. They are for brothers, little boys who died in Minneapolis in the 1870's. A box elder tree grew between them partly incorporating their edges into its trunk. There is only a stump now. The inscriptions are barely legible. If you had a copy of that picture you would take it and shove in Wolter’s face saying “WHAT A BUNCH OF CRAP!”

Mr. Colavito has my email. If he contacts me, I will send him a copy to post. I will also give a photo of the inscription in the calcite layer so you can compare the two.

Now Minneapolis had air pollution for some years so the rate of weathering is about 2-3 times faster than in the Kensington area. I have a paper that is a study of tombstones around the country: Meierding, Thomas (1993), “Inscription Legibility Method for Estimating Rock Weathering Rates,” Geomorphology, vol 6., pp. 273-286. His map on page 280 has a data point in the Kensington area. His rate of weathering is 6mm/1000 years. At that rate, in 536 years (1898-1362) the calcite layer would have been obliterated. You should also note from his study if the calcite layer were thicker still the runes would have been severely rounded and not sharp and crisp as they are today. You should be able to download a copy using Google Scholar. I gave a copy of Meierding’s paper to Mr. Wolter in 2003.

Mr. Wolter certainly can disagree with me and Meierding, but he has an ethical duty to address these issues and explain what he finds wrong with them. Here is what he wrote about the calcite layer in his 2003 work: “The hydrothermal calcite is important because several characters were carved into this area. The weathering of calcite, a relatively soft mineral (3 on the Mohs hardness scale which ranges from 1 to 10), is much different than the rest of the rock, which is considerably harder. Microscopic examination using reflected light revealed little difference between the texture and apparent weathering of the calcite both around and within the carved characters. Further study of the weathering of the characters within the calcite area might yield additional information about the relative age of the inscription. We have not pursued further analysis at this time due to reluctance of the current need for invasive test sampling within this area.” Wolter (2003) p. 11. Wolter, Scott (2003), “Geology of the Kensington Rune Stone,” Address given in Stockholm, Sweden, 56, pages [Copy in the Minnesota Historical Society collections] He republishes this on pages 17-18 in Nielsen, Richard and Scott Wolter (2006), The Kensington Rune Stone Compelling New Evidence, Lake Superior Agate Publishing, 574 pages. Calcite solubility observations and calculations are beyond the ability of this “forensic geologist.”

6/1/2016 01:28:41 pm

Harold ... as described above, the KRS was cleaned many times over the last century, and heavily cleaned before and after 5 mold-making sessions. Even one application of a low pH (acidic) cleaner is enough to dissolve all the exposed mica on the "made-made" surfaces, and likely rapidly "age" runes in the calcite area. Yet it appears these facts were ignored in the Forensic work.

Another point is the studies I've seen on "acid rain" impact on headstones is that the top surfaces age far more quickly since it dries out slowly vs. a vertical unpolished surface. Using samples from only the vertical surface of Maine tombstones as a point of mica degradation comparison against a stone (KRS) claimed to be embedded in damp topsoil for centuries just makes me shake my head. My Earth Science teacher would grade that approach with an "F."

6/1/2016 01:34:34 pm

Thanks for that and the above Harold. I do hope that your evidence is received by Jason so a more in depth topic post can be produced at a later date for all your findings.

Wolter recently maneuvered around the calcite issue within his blog comments by writing that the KRS was buried as a land claim in the sub-surface right from the get go; to be discovered by those in the know who would venture forth in short order guided by some sort of triangulation between that and his understanding of other questionable artifacts leading to it. When questioned about the probability of CO2 and acid emissions from tree roots also making mishmash of the calcite over the long years ahead he claims because it was buried face down in an alkaline heavy environment, it was instead preserved. As always, he works from his conclusion that the KRS is a genuine 14th century artifact and accepts only a fact pattern that will support said conclusion as truth. It is often pointed out to him, this is actually the opposite of the scientific method, yet he plunders on to a convoluted mess of speculations that are more often enough self-contradictory.

6/1/2016 02:41:50 pm

Alkaline-Schmalkaline. Mr. Wolter does not do his homework.

For a long period of time geomorphologists have been studying the weathering of rocks in the subsoil. They insert rock tablets--like hockey puck--into the soil at various depths. They leave them for a period of time and dig them up later to see what has happened. Here is a paper on such an experiment in southern Wisconsin:

Day, Michael (1984), “Carbonate Erosion Rates in Southwestern Wisconsin,” Physical Geography, vol. 5, pp. 142-149. Day used limestone tablets. The soil is alkaline over a dolomitic bedrock. The point here is that these tablets weather at a FASTER rate under ground than at the surface. This is under a grass soil. This is what karst geology is all about.

Here is another paper by Day in which he uses a siliceous siltstone:

Day, Michael et al (1980), “Weathering of Rock Discs in Temperate and Tropical Soils,” Zeitschrift fur Geomorphologie Supplementband 35, Berlin, pp. 11-15. I gave Wolter a copy of this paper in 2003.

Here is a paper that gives data on the CO2 flux under an aspen at the same level as the KRS inscription:

Karberg, N.J. et al, (2005) “Soil carbon dioxide partial pressure and dissolved inorganic carbonate chemistry under elevated carbon dioxide and ozone,” Oecologia, 142, pp. 296-306

I have other papers on CO2 fluxes under aspens and grasslands. Soil scientists have been measuring the CO2 levels in soils since 1916 if not earlier.

Where are Wolter's papers? Paper? Produce just one!

6/1/2016 03:35:17 pm

Yes Harold. I have been pressing the point for years that a "Midwest" rock in top soil weathers much faster than those on the surface. The main reason is moisture. Moisture evaporates quickly from the surfaces of exposed rocks but can remain in soil for many days after a good rain. Lift up any rock partially exposed and the underside is almost always wet. How can the KRS forensic work not take this basic aspect into consideration? Instead, the weathering of a Face-Down in topsoil KRS was compared to the dry vertical face of a few 200 year old Maine headstones. Again ... my Earth Science teacher would grade this approach an "F."

Given the now known number of molds pulled of the KRS and the associated harsh deep cleanings it was subjected to in its lifetime, the weathering characteristics measured in 2001 can't legitimately be compared to any natural weathering baseline or calculation to determine a rough age.

6/1/2016 04:20:38 pm

As you may know the field test for calcite or calcite bearing rocks like limestones and marbles is to put a drop of dilute hydrochloric acid (10% solution) on the specimen and watch the reaction. Calcite freely fizzes, frothing and foaming. If the KRS were washed in a weak acid and it was left on for long the calcite layer would have shown considerable amount of rounding as if it had weathered for a long period of time. This is not the case so I expect it did not happen. Rainwater is a weak acid with a pH of about 5.6.

Let’s now turn to Mr. Wolter’s biotite (mica) study. He published this in Nielsen, Richard and Scott Wolter (2006), The Kensington Rune Stone Compelling New Evidence, Lake Superior Agate Publishing, 574 pages. Pages 13-47 are almost an exact reprinting of Wolter’s 2003 paper. I don’t object to this. Mr. Wolter owns the copyright and can do as he pleases. Note that out of a 574 page book only 34 are devoted to geology. In 2004 a Swedish panel of geologists gave him a critique of his 2003 paper: Lofvendahl, Runo, et al (2004), Comments on Scott Wolter´s Report on the Kensington Stone, 14 pages. [Copy in the Minnesota Historical Society collections] You can find a copy on Nielsen’s website:

http://www.richardnielsen.org//PDFs/Loevfendahl%20final.pdf

What is sad is that Mr. Wolter took nothing of this to heart and address it in his 2006 publication. He does not accept criticism. In his paper and book chapter Wolter compares biotite from a Maine slate tombstone with that in the KRS. First, there is no biotite in the KRS. Weiblen made a microprobe analysis of the artifact. He found none. You can find a copy here:

http://www.richardnielsen.org//PDFs/Weiblen%20%282001%29%201%20to%2045,%20Appendices%201%20and%203%208MB.pdf

The KRS is a sedimentary rock. The “biotite” would therefore be detrital and weathered already. Biotite quickly weathers. Here is a paper on that: Aldahan, Ala Adin and Sadoon Morad (1986), “Chemistry of Detrital Biotites and Their Phyllosilicate Intergrowths in Sandstones,” Clays and Clay Minerals, vol. 34, pp. 539-548. Therefore the “biotite” in the fresh surface of the KRS is already weathered and on the weathered surface, who knows what, probably gone! That is why Wolter switches micas! How does Wolter identify biotite? He does not tell us. He only gives an x-ray spectra of the fresh surface of a Maine slate. For two years when I was a graduate student, I ran an electron microscope lab. I also had a course in electron microscopy and one in microprobe analysis. The latter was taught by Dr. Paul Weiblen–the one I am citing above–he was one of my professors and on my thesis committee. We have been friends since 1977. I will 70 in July. He is still spry and going strong! What does Mr. Wolter know about electron microscopy? Wolter needs to provide three other spectras–weathered Maine slate, fresh KRS, and weathered KRS. Where are they? Furthermore it is bad form to only identify minerals by chemistry alone–think of diamond and graphite, both elemental carbon, but how different in appearance. The spectra Wolter gives could easily be that of a mixture of chlorite and illite, the matrix materials of both the slate and the KRS’s graywacke. So where is the biotite? Wolter has a petrography of the KRS performed by Dr. Ojakangas, one of his former professors at U of M, Duluth. He provides none of the slate. Could he not get Dr. Ojakangas to do one for him? Certainly Wolter does not do it himself. How does he identify biotite? The dark color of the slate? Most Maine slates have little or no biotite in them. The dark color is from finely disseminated carbonaceous or iron oxide material. Here is a reference for you on this: Dale, T. Nelson (1906), Slate Deposits and Slate Industry of the United States, U.S.G.S. Bulletin 275, 154 pages. Did Wolter look at this? Does he do any homework? Where does he get his knowledge on geology. Osmosis? From whom? The archaeologist Alice Kehoe in her book on the KRS calls Wolter’s junk science “Hard Data.” I did not know whether to laugh or cry when I read that.

6/1/2016 11:14:25 am

Let’s put the Kensington Rune Stone in its place. When I tell Minnesota natives that I am working on it, they ask me “What is that?” It is ultra trivia. That is why competent geologists have not studied it to date.

Mr. Wolter’s May blog started with his chapter in the book Structural Condition Assessment by Ratay. It is a very obscure book. The University of Minnesota library does not own a copy. The U of M is one of the major universities in the United States and has an amazing library collection. It does not own a copy. I had to buy one on Amazon for $100–used!

This January Mr. Wolter the great expert on concrete gave a talk at the Iowa Concrete Paving Association's (ICPA) 52nd Annual Concrete Paving Workshop: “The Workshop concluded on Friday morning with special guest speaker Scott Wolter, forensic geologist and host of History's H2 network's hit show America Unearthed, who shared his intriguing stories on his quest to uncover the truth behind historic artifacts and sites.”

http://www.iowaconcretepaving.org/2016-concrete-paving-workshop.html

Mr. Wolter talks about archaeology to geologists and engineers. They are fascinated by the topic and eat it up. Mr. Wolter is a good entertainer. Let me remind everyone, Mr. Wolter has no formal training in the subject. Therefore his audience cannot evaluate his work by merely listening to him.

When he can, Mr. Wolter talks about geology to archaeologists. They sit in silence wondering if they have not been had.

The two groups of professionals should get together and compare notes.

6/1/2016 11:53:48 am

Whether Wolter is discussing geology or archaeology, the common thread is fallacious reasoning. Logic 101 is all it takes to debunk him, though the particulars of arts and science seem to be of use as well.

Pat S.

6/2/2016 12:06:12 pm

Mr. Wolter has always claimed that all geologists agree with his findings. That is obviously not true given the information shared by Harold Edwards. Thanks for posting this information.

6/2/2016 10:48:03 pm

Let's see... what are Wolter's go-to ad hominems when a Geologist disagrees with him:

1) They're Jealous
2) They actually do support him, but can't publicly say so or academia will frown down upon them
3) They are lying
4) They are being paid to oppose him
5) They have no credibility
6) They are part of a vast conspiracy against him, but he can say no more as it is confidential
7) They have not spent enough time doing the kind of work he does
8) They are of reprehensible and immoral character
9) They know nothing of Masonry and their ties to the Knights Templar
10) They lack the eyes to see
11) All of the above

Gunn

6/1/2016 12:20:37 pm

I wish Scott had stuck with MN and the Kensington Runestone, without adding Dan Brown into the equation, or adding in his views on a multitude of questionable artifacts unrelated to the KRS.

It should be properly noted that over the history of the KRS, more than a few professional geologists, archaeologists and anthropologists have concluded that the KRS is, indeed, genuine.

We can look back and see that Scott's problems began when he introduced what many consider to be inappropriate renderings related to matters besides geology. Of course, we have all seen examples where a piece of paper wasn't necessary to provide the academic world with winning corroborations: when proof of the evidence is proof enough.

I contend that proof of the genuineness of the KRS is self-evident enough, unless one is willing to muddy the reputations of people no longer around to defend themselves, or unless one has a skeptic’s agenda, such as the former State Archaeologist of MN had...being hidebound in the false notion that the 1600's French were the first "white" people to visit this fairly obvious medieval "Norse zone of exploration."

From my own studies, I have come to believe that there were several medieval Norse expeditions into this MN/Dakota area...and that the KRS party were probably latecomers, as were the even tardier French.

But, gentle readers of this blog will not begin to understand what went on unless they realize that the Norse came to this region exploring down dwindling waterways from two different directions (or even as a continuance in one curving direction) until they saw that the meeting place of these waters was by the MN/Dakota border, in effect creating a huge waterway circle or loop, from the Hudson Bay approach and from the St. Lawrence approach. This is the very reason for all the medieval Norse evidences in this narrowed-down spot of earth west of Runestone Hill a few hours’ drive away.

So, one reason I wish Wolter had stuck with MN and the KRS is because this particular area is extremely rich in evidences yet to be fully explored and realized. The MN state officials are of no help, not necessarily because of an "academic conspiracy," but because they are blatantly biased. Yet, the combined effect of all the evidences found in this region related to the general KRS time-frame should be enough to convince any competent enquirer about Norsemen coming to this area Again, the KRS itself has good enough provenance if one isn't completely willing to tarnish the memory of a good man. In the end, the judge will be judged.

There is a lot of shame to go around with how the KRS has been treated over the many years. Over the long haul, I have seen Wolter doing well by bringing the KRS back into more popular view, though even he knows how much I disagree with him about some issues being attached to it, such as the Jesus bloodline.

I will agree that Wolter has lost his credibility over the KRS to a certain degree because of his involvement with other "finds," which is another reason I wish he had stuck to MN and studying the KRS. Who knows what other medieval Scandinavian artifacts we may have become aware of by now, with more focused attention locally. Which reminds me:

Jason, with your backgrounds in journalism and in archaeology, maybe you could be the one to blow the lid off of history as we know it by helping to discover more about my proposed medieval Norse Code-stone, and associated land claim. Just what is buried within a coded cluster of newly-discovered medieval stoneholes, as backed up by an expensive and accurate ferrous-only metal detector? I propose that this is a medieval land-claim—and not the KRS, which is "merely" a true-story memorial stone.

Wolter and I disagree about the KRS being a land claim, too, which doesn't really matter. What does matter is that the KRS has survived many onslaughts over the years, but it endures as never having been proven a fake. The reason for that, of course, is that it is genuine...though very poorly understood, still, even after all these years. Personally, I think it helps to take the inscribed message at face value, as a simple and true story.

- Gunn

6/1/2016 01:17:46 pm

I do wonder if all those Norsemen dropping weapons, but no other evidence of their civilization, were not only the first Europeans to venture into the central regions of America, but also the first to transverse Niagara Falls in barrels... as I don't suspect their ships would have managed the feat as well.

As for the KRS having never been proven as a fake, the more logical proposition is that it has never been proven as authentic considering the vast evidence recognized that would lean otherwise.

6/2/2016 11:58:06 am

Nevertheless, Harald Fairhair's namesake, the "World's Largest Viking Ship," will be sailing to Duluth this summer through the Great Lakes, from Norway...I suppose in a way simulating exploration into medieval America back in the times of our much beloved KRS, and earlier even.

If you plan to go, Joe, you'll also be able to see the "World's Largest Rubber Duck."

- Gunn

6/2/2016 04:47:18 pm

Well, it'll be a lot easier now Gunn, considering that presently, there's a canal there...

6/3/2016 11:03:02 am

Joe, putting waterway blockages in front of Norsemen of Old will not work, and you aren't using your creative energy very well in helping our Norse friends arrive into the local community here.

You should be able to see beyond the imaginary logjams, portages and disassembling and reassembling of medieval Norse vessels...and you might also learn some lessons from the creation of "The Griffon," an early Great Lakes sailing ship somewhat ahead of her time.

There is a reason for the Copper Harbor, MI Norse Sailing Boat petroglyph at the tip of this peninsula jutting up into Lake Superior...this vessel with snake-heads at both ends was to show that Norsemen passed by in just such a sailing vessel, as also was referred to in the inscription of the KRS. Of course, the depiction could easily be from an even earlier Norse expedition. Here is an image of the medieval Norse petroglyph:

http://www.hallmarkemporium.com/kensingtonrunestone/id21.html

This isn't far from Duluth, or more properly said, the Bruel River, which leads to the St. Croix River, down to the Mississippi River, back up a short distance to the Minnesota River, then westward and northward to the Chippewa River and merrily on their way to Runestone Hill and beyond. The recently found "Lake With Two Skerries" is located up the Chippewa River about a day's travel from Runestone Hill, as also told about in the inscription on the KRS. The Erdahl Axe was found on the west bank of this lake back in 1894, before even the KRS was found.

Joe, what are the odds of finding a lake fitting the description on the runestone, the same distance referred to on the runestone, and with a medieval battle implement found buried like a time-capsule near pools of fresh water on the west bank of this same lake? To answer this in the adverse, you must be willing to jump up and down on the grave of old Mrs. Davidson, the original land owner, who gave all pertinent details in a legal affidavit. The Erdahl Axe was found a foot and a half down under a stump two feet across.

The conversely pristine Brandon Axe was given to another original landowner by a Native American, ironically, for letting him stay on the pioneer's land. Brandon is only several miles away from Erdahl. Both axes are very much alike in their characteristics, and both are from the Old World...the Old Norse World.

Joe, you are wasting a lot of energy trying to debunk the un-debunkable. Just because Wolter is on the side of the KRS being authentic isn't justification for attacking him all these years. But then, I suppose you have other reasons, too, which you will be only too happy to let us know about, to refresh our memories. We might like to hear from some of your many alter-egos on the subject, too, if you insist on wasting more of your time and energy on a lost cause.

- Gunn (aka Bob Voyles)

6/3/2016 12:04:01 pm

It does seem rather odd that earlier on in this discussion you decried personal attacks on those who shared your KRS views. That of course hasn't stopped you from making personal attacks despite none being made here against you. So you accuse me of posting on this thread not only as myself, but "John", "Mike" and "etc" in your attempt to discredit me. Pure ad hominem on your part, and wholly untrue. I offered you a wager in this regard and a reasonable way to settle it, and of course you remain silent on such a challenge. Yet you continue to make this assertion which I know to be untrue as a certainty. Thus it leads me to not only question your judgment, but your ability to analyze facts; which I must admit were already suspect in my view. But I will stand by my arguments above, and add only that if your Norsemen were busy building ships to get around Niagara Falls, you'd think they'd have left more behind than a battle ax.

When I first witnessed Wolter on television, I was struck by his penchant for fallacious reasoning; which was incredible to me considering it appeared on a television network that purported to be educational. When I did a bit more research I realized that both his grasp of history and science were rife with mendacity. I attempted to engage him rationally on his blog as anyone can read, yet his responses always eroded to pure ad hominem.

My mistake was attempting to engage you in a rational discussion Gunn. As with Wolter, I see that is an impossibility. Take heart however, as I will make no such attempts with either of you in the future.

6/3/2016 01:45:44 pm

Engaging in invective only creates hatred in the other person who in turn hurls back invective creating hatred in yourself. We all get sadistic pleasure in rubbing the other fellow’s nose in his stupidity. You need to curb that appetite. We are all subject to delusional thinking, even the smartest and best educated of us.

You can easily do this with digital or film photography: Put a camera on a tripod and focus it on some plants and flowers in a garden. Make a silhouette of a fairy made from black paper stock glued to a stick–like a popsicle. Place it in front of the flowers and refocus the camera so everything is in focus. Put a cap in front of the lens. Set the camera for a timed exposure and uncap it for a few seconds. Recap it and remove the silhouette. Uncap the camera for another few seconds and process the image. This is called a double exposure. This cheap trick convinced Dr. Arthur Conan Doyle that there were real fairies. He was medical doctor and the creator of Sherlock Holmes, the epitome of the logical, scientific detective. He believed in this nonesense until the end of his days. Even the efforts of the likes of the magician Houdini could not disabuse him of this. Doyle had lost much of his family around the time of WWI. That broke his heart. He wanted to reach across the veil of death and reconnect with them. We all have our blind spots.

Life is difficult. It ends in death. All of us use delusional thinking to get by. If we only used rational thinking we couldn’t even eat our breakfast. The need to collect data and go through the steps of any rational process would stymie us. We spend most of our time on autopilot and let our emotions make decisions for us. People have strong psychological needs to believe in the irrational. Delusional thinking protects those needs. One must have compassion. It is our duty to love ourselves and one another.

Keep you eyes on the ball. Was the KRS made in 1362 or 1898? As to the geologist Winchell in 1910: Where does he write the artifact is genuine or indeed ANY geological opinion whatsoever on the Kensington Rune Stone? How do you know? I defy you to find primary sources. What was the state of geological knowledge in 1910? What is it today, 2016? Why cling to the geology of 1910?

6/3/2016 02:28:14 pm

Thank you Harold, for your appeal to the better angels of our nature. I don't disagree with you one bit.

That is an excellent point in regard to Winchell. In his committee report to the Minnesota Historical Society there is very little geology, but instead a selective reliance upon the personal observations as recounted over a decade after the fact by others.

6/3/2016 05:24:27 pm

One can argue that a ship with snake heads represents a true sighting or record of a Norse/Viking ship passing through the area, but one can also argue that someone much later decided to etch it there in the mid-19th century as well. It could very well have been etched by locals calling back to their own Scandinavian heritage out of a sense of pride, artistic expression, or even an attempt to make the argument that you propose today; that Norsemen were there and carved their presence in stone.

The problem with this etching is that it isn't very deep and doesn't look particularly weathered. You've been touting this carving on face value for years, Gunn, but without any real provenance or testing to back the claim that it is as old as you want it to be it remains a one-off carving with no known explanation.

No known explanation does not automatically make any explanation you wish it to fit the true one.

Further, one can easily argue that the "lake with two skerries" you cite existed when the KRS was carved, but if the lake exists today that still isn't a valid claim in regards to proving authenticity. If it exists today, and it existed however far back one wishes to ascribe the carving of the runestone, then it had to have existed at any point in time between those dates - effectively making it just as plausible that under the hoax hypothesis the stone was written to describe the area as it was known to the hoaxer.

Again, the existence of a topographical feature does not preclude authenticity of the carving describing it - only that whoever wrote it knew of that feature.

So too we have to acknowledge that yes, you differ from Wolter in that you do not accept the KRS as a land claim hypothesis. You do, however, claim that a bunch of holes drilled in rocks are the land claim instead: with no evidence of such a technique ever actually having been used by medieval Norse.

You have to prove that drilling holes in seemingly randomly-placed rocks was an actual method of claiming land (why not carving one's initials, or a sigil standing for their name, or even their full name or that of their nation, for example?) used by the people you propose did it in the timeframe in which you propose they did.

So far I haven't seen anything conclusive in your writings to suggest you've managed to prove any of these other options false, and even as recently as this comment thread issued a plea with Jason to do the work for you:

"ason, with your backgrounds in journalism and in archaeology, maybe you could be the one to blow the lid off of history as we know it by helping to discover more about my proposed medieval Norse Code-stone, and associated land claim. Just what is buried within a coded cluster of newly-discovered medieval stoneholes, as backed up by an expensive and accurate ferrous-only metal detector? I propose that this is a medieval land-claim—and not the KRS, which is "merely" a true-story memorial stone."

6/3/2016 09:44:59 pm

Hi Clint. Some folks were trying to attribute the Norse Sailing Boat to the great copper heist of a few thousand years ago (Berry Fell, for one). After researching this petroglyph a few years ago, I found out that the Norse used snake-heads commonly after dragon heads. You can see that the ship is a medieval Norse vessel in every way...now including the snake-heads. This new finding seems to be in favor with the message on the KRS, that a ship or ships were waiting for the return of the ill-fated party of sojourners, two weeks away from Runestone Hill...in this instance, near Duluth.

As for the Norse Code-stone, yes, I have tried many avenues to get someone with "abilities" to become involved with an approved archaeological dig at the site near Appleton, MN. As you may know, I recently wrote an article on the subject of the Code-stone, which you can read here:

http://www.hallmarkemporium.com/kensingtonrunestone/id36.html

This is a page from my website, where I'm not selling anything. I pay a monthly fee to share my ideas with others as a sort of public service to advanced study of the KRS and associated topics. You will see a photo of the simple-looking Norse Code-stone at this page. The code-stone is located about two dozen paces from a ridge-line, seemingly unconnected with the stonehole rocks on the ridge...except that this code-stone is showing in miniature the same arrangement of stonehole rocks as seen on the ridge. A stonehole rock has a chunk purposely cracked off from a stonehole. Follow where this chunk of rock goes, if you can....

At this point, you may want to refer to the article I recently wrote about stoneholes, which you can find here:

http://www.hallmarkemporium.com/kensingtonrunestone/id39.html

Lastly, Clint, this site near Appleton is within view of where the Pomme de Terre River discharges into the MN River, and the Pomme de Terre reaches farthest north into the MN River watershed...surpassing the nearby Chippewa River, for instance.

I paid quite a bit for a professional ferrous-only metal detector, and this detector gets zero hits in the area...except in the same, exact spot indicated as "HOT" by the Norse Code-stone and associated stonehole rocks. I have made the code-stone situation somewhat available for study through a power-point presentation, besides through the Norwegian American Weekly article a few months ago.

Delusional I am not. The King of Minnesota I'm not. Minnesota Jones I'm not. Basketball Jones I'm not, either. But I did find what I take as an authentic Norse Code-stone hiding something made of metal, purposely buried within a small cluster of stonehole rocks, since a time probably between AD 1100-1300. Check it out.

I need help with this, and I don't mind creative input on how to achieve my goal of having this spot of ground looked at. I'm in no way embarrassed by what I'm claiming to have found; rather, I feel blessed, except for the necessary attending frustration of not getting any help from State officials...the site is on State land set aside for quail habitat. The site has never been plowed or developed or disturbed, and it used to be Indian Reservation land years ago, I believe.

flip

6/19/2016 05:01:07 am

Although late to this conversation, I'm leaving this for any future lurkers: Gunn, aka Bob Voyles, stating on another website that the KRS is most definitely linked to Templars. Putting his whole comment about his dislike of Wolter's claims of Templar-KRS connections in stark contrast and contradiction.

http://www.scotclans.com/lorry-driver-becomes-new-chief-of-clan-gunn/#comment-264

Andy White

6/1/2016 01:56:51 pm

This is a fascinating discussion. I'm on vacation now and am not supposed to be working, so the most I can do at the moment is read the comments on my phone. I'm looking forward to following up by reading some of the references.

6/1/2016 02:40:45 pm

I second that! It would be great to see some of these photos Harold is talking about. This is the best discussion I have seen on the KRS in quite some time.

6/1/2016 03:01:22 pm

Perhaps we could persuade Dr. Edwards to drop by Andy's facebook group "Fraudulent Archaeology Wall of Shame" @ https://www.facebook.com/groups/149844915349213/ to post some of his pictures with commentary?

Annie C.Cloutier

6/2/2016 07:23:05 pm

After reading most of Harold's science and the process of such lab work, something comes back to me over and over with the KRS color change: Might Scott Wolter have tried to chemically erode and age the stone by applying Coke-a-Cola ? Please do not laugh, I have heard of this attempt elsewhere to age rocks. Also,Isn't taking grave stone (2)Wolter,
from Maine grave sites against the law ?

knightglider

6/3/2016 04:58:20 am

Holy crap! Scott Wolter has completely lost it. Not that he had much to begin with anyway up there in that fringe filled brain of his.
BTW. Awesome job with the site Jason, been following the blog for a while, first time commenting.

Guess the flame wars on youtube will have another wall of text page to rave and rant with the AA crazies and Wolteracts.

6/3/2016 03:05:54 pm

Let me say this about Scott Wolter’s Professional Geologist license of which he is so proud. If you wish to get one today, you must take the ASBOG examination and pass it. Here is the Minnesota Board of AELSLAGID’s website:

http://mn.gov/aelslagid/

Here is the ASBOG website where you can read more about the test and its rationale:

http://www.asbog.org/

Mr. Wolter did not take it. He was grandfathered in. At the time Minnesota adopted licensing, most geologists objected to licensing unless they were grandfathered in and thus did not have to take the exam. Think about the stupidity of this: If there were bad geologists malpracticing to the extent to raise alarm in the state and force it to resort to licensing, and an ASBOG exam was needed to weed the idiots out, why grandfather them in? Don’t get me wrong there are many fine geologists who were grandfathered in, but is Mr. Wolter among them? I was not practicing geology at the time and thus did not get grandfathered in. I took the exam.

Here is what I will do. I will retake the exam if Mr. Wolter will take it the first time. About 25% of the candidates fail it the first time through. I passed it the first time through, but who knows I could fail it today. It was hard exam. Much of it covers material that even with all my undergraduate education and Ph.D. in geology, I had no formal training in. Much of it involves engineering geology, hydrology, and geophysical prospecting. These are areas I had only tangential knowledge of. If I fail it, I will lose my license and have to retake the exam with egg on my face!

Mr. Wolter your move.

6/3/2016 05:39:02 pm

Not being especially conversant with geology and its standards, I've kept pretty much quiet while nonetheless appreciating everything you've had to say on this comment thread, Dr. Edwards, so let me thank you for all the great information first of all.

I do find this licensing bit interesting. As we all know, Wolter spent years claiming an Honorary Masters degree that was really just a cup of coffee and a sit down with his old professors - and we have that much from Wolter himself. He only removed it from his CV when publicly called out for it on this very blog.

Now, though, hearing that he didn't even take the qualifying test for a geology license just seems to add to the notion this man really doesn't perform to the standards of the field. His concrete stability work, perhaps, notwithstanding.

I'm curious if you had any prior knowledge of another of his great geological blunders: the court case of Albert Peterson vs. Scott Wolter (outlined here: http://www.jasoncolavito.com/scott-wolter-lawsuit.html) in which he misrepresented, either knowingly or unknowingly, a Brazil agate worth about $25 as a Lake Superior Agate worth over $2000. This from the man who's previous claim to fame had been his book "establishing" him as an expert in Lake Superior Agates.

Taken together, all these things just leave a big gaping question as to the man's actual credentials.

Seeing as we know he has nothing higher than a Bachelor's in geology, faked an Honorary Masters, and never took the licensing test, I can't help but chuckle that he calls you - a Ph.D. holder in geology - a "failed academic".

6/3/2016 06:05:29 pm

As to the "failed academic" I am not the man I would like to be. I will take my hits. All of us could have played our hands better in life, but what is the saying about people who live in glass houses? Mr. Wolter's books on agates and the Kensington Rune Stone are published by Lake Superior Agate Publishing. Mr. Wolter owns that business. He in effect is the publisher of his own work. Mr. Wolter excels in self promotion. Believe me, he can always get a spot on the evening news. The reporter will end shaking his head, but he will still give Wolter the time. Each year we spend more on astrology in the United States than on astronomical research. That is the nub of the problem.

6/4/2016 11:20:43 pm

Looks like Wolter has a new blog entry:

"Saturday, June 4, 2016

Kensington Rune Stone: Theories Verses Facts
In the last couple of years there has a surge in the number of people with theories about the Kensington Rune Stone. Some have been supportive of authenticity and some have not. Recently, a KRS researcher and local attorney in Minneapolis, David O.D. Johnson, wrote comments on a blog addressing the recent surge in theories and if the "evidence" supporting these ideas would meet the criteria of admissibility in a court of law.

Quoting Johnson, "My head is spinning with the multitude of “theories” currently being advanced under the guise of “factual”. I don’t have any problem with advancing one’s theory, but I still expect that something resembling a fact needs to be advanced in order to give any valid theory some credence. After reading the latest pontifications, I fully expected the next “theory” to maintain that space aliens came down to rural Minnesota and zapped a piece of greywacke with its inscriptions. I guess they must have done so to trick all the Scandinavians of the area into believing it was real.

Anyway, I digress. The common theme being presented is that “evidence” exists, so the rest of us rubes should pay attention. Maybe I shouldn’t opine on a legal basis for factual material, but I am going to do so anyway. Most of these theories lack an evidential background. In legal forums evidence must be supported as factually based. What has been asserted with regard to Masons, Freemasons, Swedish Monks, various non-existent stones, documents, and self-serving statements. When questioned on the evidentiary basis, the most common response is silence or the common refrain “look it up on the internet”. The internet is not the original source material, thus in my opinion and as a legal practitioner, such “evidence” would have no value."

In the interest of full disclosure, Johnson is a supporter of the authenticity of the artifact, but his point about the veracity of the factual evidence required to support ANY theory is 100% correct. This has been the primary argument behind my own research since I first laid eyes on the stone in July of 2000. I've pontificated, ad nausea, about the process of scientific method, collection of factual data, interpretations based on those facts, and then drawing conclusions that will stand up to scrutiny in a court of law, under oath. I'm sure I don't need to remind the regular readers of this blog about my three decades of operating a materials forensic laboratory performing what are essentially, autopsies on problem concrete and rock primarily in the construction industry. I have testified, under oath, dozens of times to my scientific findings and conclusions related to these cases, and understand what meets the criteria of factual evidence as well as any lawyer trying these cases.

What I thought I'd do is encourage those with an opinion or theory about the Kensington Rune Stone, or any other related artifact or site, to present their ideas and let's see how it stands up. I also encourage other researchers, be it from the professional or academic world, or from amateur researchers with questions about what constitutes factual evidence that meet acceptable criteria for acceptance in a legal case. In the end, we all want a consensus on the authenticity of the artifact that the academic process for the past 118 years has been unable to produce. Nearly everyone has an opinion about its authenticity, but do what they consider to be "facts" or "evidence" really meet the required standard to support their opinion?

One recent example of erroneous theory was offered by a geologist with a PhD. One would assume such a seemingly educated person would understand how they needed the appropriate facts to support their theory, but it turns out they did not. In this particular case, the person claimed the white calcite on the face side of the Kensington Rune Stone (and dozen or so runes carved into that area) would have dissolved away by exposure to acidic water if shallowly buried at Rune Stone Hill on the Ohman Farm. To be fair, my understanding is this person has not been a practicing professional geologist for many years so their "rock" skills don't appear to be that sharp and they clearly do not understand the known geological facts relating to the artifact that pertain to this theory. The glacial till where the Kensington Rune Stone was found is "limey" or has a higher than neutral pH (<7). This would quickly neutralize any acidic solution produced by the decomposition of the organic material and not attack the calcite. In fact, the relatively high pH conditions of the glacial till at Rune Stone Hill actually promotes the accumulation of secondary calcite as found on the bottom back end of the artifact. How a trained geologist with a PhD could make such a m

6/4/2016 11:22:47 pm

How a trained geologist with a PhD could make such a mistake is unclear. However, the obvious negative bias of this particular individual appears to have clouded their judgment. Clouded judgment in all academic disciplines due to various forms of personal bias have dogged the Kensington Rune Stone research to this day.

There are many who have accused me of being biased and to a certain degree this is true. I have been biased by the voluminous factual evidence primarily associated with the rock itself. I have always trusted what the rock has to say, not the flawed logic and unsupported assertions by individuals driven by one form of personal bias or another. I challenge readers to offer their specific theories, ideas, evidence, and facts and let's see if they hold up to scientific scrutiny. They don't have to be related to the stone itself or geology, it can be about who carved the stone, Olof Ohman, or anything else related to the artifact. Let's have some fun and see how you do!"

http://scottwolteranswers.blogspot.com/2016/06/kensington-rune-stone-theories-verses.html

6/5/2016 12:26:56 am

My Ph.D. is irrelevant. A seven year old child, boy or girl, who does science is a scientist. Mr. Wolter is not. Where does Mr. Wolter get his data? Let him cite his sources from the technical literature if he has any. Does he make up all his own science? If he made measurements, then what are they? How did he derive them? What was his protocol? Where are his field notes? When were they written? Did he do a pH test on present day Runestone Hill? This is a park, a groomed landscape and not the original soil. It has been so for some years. Did he take that into account? Mr. Wolter has no evidence. He is making it up out of whole cloth! This is all irrelevant anyway. The artifact was found under a quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides Michx.). There is none there today. It appears to be grass. The conditions are completely different. What is Mr. Wolter smoking?

There is no corroborating physical evidence to the testimony of Olof Ohman and his sons that the artifact was ever buried. The artifact itself shows no indication that it ever was buried. The sandstone–graywacke--has shown severe delamination prior to carving the inscription. There is nothing of this around the areas of the inscription. They are sharp and crisp and go right up to a step in the rock layers and over it to the other side! Parts of the inscription should have split off and be missing. Why not? Mr. Wolter’s Maine tombstones–slates showed delamination at their tops. Why not the Kensington Stone? What is Mr. Wolter smoking?

The equilibrium pH of calcite in the Kensington area is about 8.3. (This is temperature dependent. Does Mr. Wolter know that?) Below that pH–including Mr. Wolters 7–calcite will dissolve. The lower from 8.3, the more acidic, the faster the calcite dissolves. Above a pH of about 8.3 calcite precipitates. Therefore the runes would be showing scale on their surfaces. None of this is there. Here is the soil survey for Douglas County which discusses the soils at the findsite and the pH’s at various depths: DeMarteleare, Donald E. (1975) Soil Survey of Douglas County, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 112 pages. Newer surveys are online. You can also download GIS data. From this I have made my own map. Where is Mr. Wolter’s map?

Rainwater is slightly acidic with a pH of about 5.6. This is sufficient to dissolve calcite over time. One study found that the soils at an aspen site have a pH of 5.38 for the humus–ground litter, 5.40 for the interval 0-2 inches, 5.35 from 2-10 inches, and 5.42 from 10-36 inches. Stoeckeler, p. 23 Stoeckeler, Joseph Henry (1960), Soil Factors Affecting the Growth of Quaking Aspen Forests in the Lake States. Technical Bulletin, Minnesota Agriculture Experiment Station. 46 pages. The Kensington Rune Stone is about 5.5" thick and “was found, its inscribed side was down, and about six inches of soil covered it”--page 221. Minnesota Historical Society Museum Committee, (1915) “The Kensington Rune Stone Preliminary Report,” in Minnesota Historical Collections, Minnesota Historical Society, vol 15, St. Paul, pp. 221-286.

Stoeckeler’s values are more acidic than rainwater. What is Mr. Wolter smoking? Tell him to go home and take up another hobby. Rocks are too hard for him.

6/5/2016 11:10:15 am

There is no attorney named "David O.D. Johnson" licensed to practice law in Minnesota. You can try to find one here:

http://mars.courts.state.mn.us/Default.aspx

or here:

http://lprb.mncourts.gov/LawyerSearch/Pages/default.aspx

Mr. Wolter must be OD'ing on whatever it is he is smoking.

6/5/2016 12:34:41 pm

Harold, I looked up "David Johnson Kensington Runestone" on google and these links showed up:

https://www.linkedin.com/in/david-johnson-bb4ab514

https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?id=287262734058&v=wall&story_fbid=10152093300784059

The David Johnson in these links could very well be the David Johnson Wolter is referring to.