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”!
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:
If you have an opinion, feel free to let me know using the survey form below:
96 Comments
JJ
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.
Reply
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.
Reply
JJ
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.
tm
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.
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.
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.
Reply
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
Reply
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.
Reply
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.
Reply
Jonathan Feinstein
5/29/2016 06:25:21 pm
Yep. I think the countdown has already started on this one.
Reply
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...
Reply
Shane Sullivan
5/29/2016 02:00:17 pm
Xplrr? What is that, a Lin Carter character?
Reply
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?"
Reply
Only Me
5/29/2016 04:11:34 pm
Like I mentioned on a previous blog post:
Reply
John
5/29/2016 10:43:22 pm
Did anyone catch this conversation in the replies of Wolter's blog?:
Reply
Joe Scales
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.
Reply
John
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.
Only Me
5/30/2016 03:17:17 am
Quoting Nielsen from the article "Science, Archaeology and the Human Condition", 26 Nov 2010, www.midwesternepigraphic.org:
Joe Scales
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.
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.”
Reply
Harold Edwards
5/30/2016 03:23:37 pm
Here is the rest of my comment, sorry for the length. There must be a word limit.
Reply
John
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:
Rose McDonald
6/2/2016 02:56:47 am
Harold Edwards;
Gina Torresso
6/2/2016 02:13:22 pm
Harold,
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
Harold Edwards
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.
JJ
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
Reply
Harold Edwards
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!
Joe Scales
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.
Reply
Harold Edwards
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.
Joe Scales
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.
Harold Edwards
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.
Joe Scales
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.
Harold Edwards
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
Joe Scales
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.
Harold Edwards
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."
Reply
Jerky
6/3/2016 05:01:04 pm
mamorical should say memorial.
Harold Edwards
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.
Jerky
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.
Harold Edwards
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.
Reply
John
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.
Reply
Harold Edwards
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.]
John
5/31/2016 04:23:38 am
@ Harold
Reply
Harold Edwards
5/31/2016 04:44:31 pm
Minnesota Administrative Rules:
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.
Reply
Rose McDonald
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?
Reply
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.
Reply
Mike Morgan
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?
Reply
Edward N.
5/31/2016 04:00:01 am
@ Gunn
Reply
Edward N.
5/31/2016 04:08:00 am
*conclusion
Joe Scales
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.
Reply
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.
Joe Scales
5/31/2016 10:13:53 pm
Gunn,
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.
Reply
Clete
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)?
Reply
John
5/31/2016 10:56:52 pm
InvisibleJenn May 31, 2016 at 12:28 AM
Reply
Only Me
6/1/2016 02:04:36 am
Wolter really has no understanding of hypocrisy, does he?
Reply
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.
Harold Edwards
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.
Reply
Joe Scales
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
Harold Edwards
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.
Tom
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.
Joe Scales
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.
Harold Edwards
6/1/2016 02:41:50 pm
Alkaline-Schmalkaline. Mr. Wolter does not do his homework.
Tom
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."
Harold Edwards
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.
Harold Edwards
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.
Reply
Joe Scales
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.
Reply
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.
Joe Scales
6/2/2016 10:48:03 pm
Let's see... what are Wolter's go-to ad hominems when a Geologist disagrees with him:
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.
Reply
Joe Scales
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.
Reply
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.
Joe Scales
6/2/2016 04:47:18 pm
Well, it'll be a lot easier now Gunn, considering that presently, there's a canal there...
Gunn
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.
Joe Scales
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.
Harold Edwards
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.
Joe Scales
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.
Clint Knapp
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.
Gunn
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.
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.
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.
Reply
JJ
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.
Reply
Mike Morgan
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?
Reply
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,
Reply
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.
Reply
Harold Edwards
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:
Reply
Clint Knapp
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.
Reply
Harold Edwards
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.
John
6/4/2016 11:20:43 pm
Looks like Wolter has a new blog entry:
Reply
John
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.
Reply
Harold Edwards
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?
Reply
Harold Edwards
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:
Reply
John
6/5/2016 12:34:41 pm
Harold, I looked up "David Johnson Kensington Runestone" on google and these links showed up: Your comment will be posted after it is approved.
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorI am an author and researcher focusing on pop culture, science, and history. Bylines: New Republic, Esquire, Slate, etc. There's more about me in the About Jason tab. Newsletters
Enter your email below to subscribe to my newsletter for updates on my latest projects, blog posts, and activities, and subscribe to Culture & Curiosities, my Substack newsletter.
Categories
All
Terms & ConditionsPlease read all applicable terms and conditions before posting a comment on this blog. Posting a comment constitutes your agreement to abide by the terms and conditions linked herein.
Archives
November 2024
|