Scott Wolter: Jason Colavito Is a "Hate-Blogger," Tells "Outright Lies"

1/19/2014

Let me start by thanking Tara Jordan for bringing this to my attention. On Friday morning, Scott Wolter posted a comment on his blog accusing me of being a “hate-blogger” and telling “outright lies” about him and his work. Let me be clear: This is a very serious allegation, and it is one that I take very seriously. Normally I do not respond to personal attacks (you’re welcome to Google my name to see more), but I do make an exception when they are made by prominent fringe figures such as David Childress, Philip Coppens, and now Scott Wolter. Wolter, however, does not consider his statements serious enough to support with facts, stating that he does not “read [Jason’s] stuff” despite somehow feeling comfortable in declaring it “outright lies.”

Here are Wolter’s words, posted in response to a question from Ken Davidson asking him about my “hate blog”:

The hate-blogger actually helps the show by creating controversy. I don’t read his stuff because it serves no constructive purpose. He doesn't acknowledge sound factual evidence, presents misleading information along with outright lies, and his followers resort to angry name-calling. I’ve been told that I've been called a pathological liar, mentally unstable, and a racist. Why would anyone bother to engage such nonsense? One thing I know for sure, he and his followers are watching the show and that’s a good thing!

Scott Wolter’s statement is categorically false. Let’s break it down.

The phenomenon of the hate-blog is typically defined as a blog that is obsessively focused on posting negative information about a specific individual or entity. You can read about the phenomenon at The Awl, where journalist Adrian Chen explains that hate-blogs exist to try to engage the subject in reactions for emotional satisfaction. I remain steadfastly uninterested in Scott Wolter’s emotional state.

I have been blogging in some form or another since 2001, and in those thirteen years I have covered hundreds, possibly thousands, of different topics. Just this week, I discussed creationists’ dinosaur claims, right-wing revisionist history, and space aliens shopping in Las Vegas. I regularly review other television programs besides America Unearthed, including Ancient Aliens and Unsealed: Alien Files. In fact, I’ve been reviewing television since my very first post-college job reviewing The O.C. episodically in 2003. In terms of sheer volume of coverage, my “hate” blog would hate Ancient Aliens over America Unearthed nearly 2:1. If I “hate” it is only the hatred of seeing history twisted.

Wolter then claims I do not “acknowledge sound factual evidence.” I defy him to find a place where I have failed to acknowledge each piece of evidence presented on America Unearthed. I dutifully report each claim made, noting how Wolter presented it before explaining my take on it. After reading my review, you should be able to understand what Wolter claims as well as my views about it. Wolter seems to think that making a claim entitles him to having it believed; but it is up to him to make a case for his views, not for me to assume he’s right. In many cases, such as Wolter’s claims about caliche in Arizona, others with equal or better credentials and stronger evidence have drawn opposing conclusions. Given the sheer volume of information Wolter leaves out, it’s rather rich for him to accuse me of presenting “misleading” information. I again defy him to find “outright lies” that I tell about his factual evidence or his historical claims. (Or anything else for that matter.)

Wolter owes his readers (and mine) the courage of his convictions: Please share these “outright lies.” Like all humans, I am fallible, and I am happy to correct any unintentional errors. We may even have differences of interpretation, occasioned perhaps by my inability to guess the alleged facts behind evidence-free statements. But I don’t tell “outright lies.”

I renew the offer I made last year: I remain happy to publish, unedited, for all to read a written piece by Scott Wolter explaining exactly why I am wrong.

I have never called Wolter “a pathological liar, mentally unstable, and a racist,” and I have repeatedly said that I do not believe Wolter to be a racist. I am not a psychiatrist and cannot make any statements about his mental condition. To conflate me with people who post comments in response to my blog posts is, however, an act of mendacity. Anyone may post a comment, supportive or oppositional. I am not responsible for others’ comments. They are their own people, and I am on record as removing comments that contain libelous accusations or medical diagnoses as soon as I am informed of them.

Does Wolter take responsibility for each comment posted about the show on the H2 Facebook page? Here’s one: “I watched this episode. there were so many factual errors in it I dont think I'll ever watch the show again. I want my hour back please.” Negative comments run about 2:1 on H2’s America Unearthed Facebook posts, even among “fans,” many of whom have become concerned that a conspiracy forced Wolter to pretend Rockwall’s rock wall was natural and not made by Bible giants. I guess H2 is running an anti-Wolter hate page! By Wolter’s logic, he is responsible for all of the comments made on official pages in response to his work, and I would equally be responsible for Steve St. Clair’s and the Rev. Phil Gotsch’s steadfast endorsement of Wolter in this very forum.

Let me finish my analysis by noting that Wolter failed to inform his readers of his own conflict of interest in assessing my motivations. Wolter failed to acknowledge that he or his representatives prevailed upon A+E Networks to issue me a cease and desist order and threaten a lawsuit against me in his name. Surely that’s relevant to understanding Wolter’s reaction to me, and it’s the kind of routine bit of disclosure that professional ethics requires. It’s why I remind readers of this whenever if becomes relevant. I don’t do it for my health; surely it would be easier to pretend it never happened, but it would be deceptive to readers.

I would, though, suggest that Wolter’s people might take a few minutes to read my reviews. Despite what he thinks, I do offer a wealth of material as well as suggestions that, if implemented, would have made his show stronger. For example, in reviewing this week’s episode, I suggested that exploring the geological evidence that connected the Aztecs to Spiro Mounds in Oklahoma would have been both more interesting and more historically relevant than his pointless submarine product placement adventure.

It’s probably also worth noting that in his other comments on the blog, Wolter also admitted to staging large chunks of the show (isn’t that “misleading information”?) and focusing on “entertainment” that compromises his ability to tell “taboo” truths.

“If they truly thought it was all crap, they wouldn't complain would they?” Wolter said of his critics. Um, well, yes, I would. It’s all “crap” and that’s why I complain. If it were true, I wouldn’t be complaining!

To conclude on a more positive note, for those of you who want to complain that I am “obsessed” with Wolter despite writing on many other topics each week, ask yourself why you are here and not at Right Pundits, where each week conservative columnist Andrew Zarowny offers a full-length review of the latest episode of America Unearthed from a credulous perspective and without any outside research. Here’s his “Secret Blueprint” review, and I believe, if I am not mistaken, it’s exactly the kind of review Scott Wolter’s super-fans and friends want to see. Yet they aren’t there.

Is Mr. Zarowny “obsessed” with Wolter since he does what I do but from a believer’s point of view? Or does his endorsement of Wolter’s views absolve him? If so, why? I challenge each person who claims I am obsessed to have the courage of his convictions and treat Mr. Zarowny the same way. What other reason could a person possibly have to review television shows each week except for deep-seated obsession?

172 Comments

Adam W

1/19/2014 03:44:41 am

Great post, Jason.

One thing: the first sentence should read "Let me start by..."

Jason Colavito link

1/19/2014 03:46:48 am

Thanks. Fixed.

The Complete Comment from Scott Wolter

1/19/2014 08:31:38 am

Scott Wolter
January 17, 2014 at 10:18 AM

The hate-blogger actually helps the show by creating controversy. I don't read his stuff because it serves no constructive purpose. He doesn't acknowledge sound factual evidence, presents misleading information along with outright lies, and his followers resort to angry name-calling. I've been told that I've been called a pathological liar, mentally unstable, and a racist. Why would anyone bother to engage such nonsense? One thing I know for sure, he and his followers are watching the show and that's a good thing!

1/19/2014 08:38:10 am

That would be the complete comment I have given as a block quote above.

Fantasy History Watcher

1/19/2014 10:07:59 pm

Nothing new, going into persecution-complex mode

CHV

2/1/2014 02:16:28 pm

Exactly. Wolter's chronic hypersensitivity to criticism is pretty remarkable. IMO, it's rooted to textbook Narcissism.

Brian W

1/19/2014 03:49:15 am

Jason, thank you for what you do here. I was so excited when AU first began. I love history and although i dont hold them as fact, i like shows like AU that give a different viewpoint or idea. That was before i started reading your blog. After a couple of episodes i began to wonder, man if this is true my history books have been lying to me. Some research on the internet proved that AU was not what i thought. Every episode got worse and worse and more warped into SW ideas from his books that it became a joke to me. The facts you present to all of us are priceless. Its a joke to me that people can defend SW and AU and even more sad that SW believes what hes presenting is true. I guess if i was him i'd say the same thing about your blog, because just saying that its hate and lies gets him out of actually defending himself with facts. Keep it up, Keep giving us the facts. thank you

LynnBrant link

1/19/2014 04:33:48 am

I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that he believes everything he presents.

1/19/2014 05:19:10 am

I realize this season he's strayed from his favorite subject matter and is being lead by his producers, but in general was my point.

LynnBrant

1/19/2014 06:19:44 am

Brian, I understand, I just differ with you on that. I think there is no subject matter that he wouldn't throw overboard for some promising new material. Especially now that he is desperately in need of new material.

Tara Jordan link

1/19/2014 05:33:06 am

Extremely ironical & utterly hypocritical for Scott Wolter to label academics & scientists as liars,incompetent,fraudulent,stupid,short minded individuals,participants in a conspiracy to "suppress the truth" etc....while he systematically avoids confrontation & refuse public debate.(and in the same breath,also denounces the "name calling" from the other side).

1/19/2014 05:39:06 am

Jason
According to messages I received on my Facebook page,I am officially:"Jason`s little bitch".I would appreciate if you could publish a disclaimer (snark).

1/19/2014 05:41:05 am

Ha! Obviously, Tara is no one's bitch and is an able defender of her views. As mentioned many times, we do not always agree.

1/19/2014 05:44:04 am

XD

Il vaut mieux en rire qu'en pleurer.

Only Me

1/19/2014 09:21:22 am

Boy, did they get it wrong! You are "The" bitch.

1/19/2014 03:45:10 pm

Miss Bitch. XD

Clint Knapp

1/19/2014 05:46:11 am

Minor note; this post is displaying just below the latest AU dissection though I didn't see it last night when I read that review and the Creationist Texts article was second from the top at that time. Weebly snafu, or did the Creationist-Templar Conspiracy make me miss this one?

To the topic at hand, though, this one did take me aback for a moment. It seems very strange for Wolter to make such a forthright statement. Almost as though he's decided the controversy he's so willing to attribute to his show's success required a little more kick.

He'd seemed so willing to ignore your blog after that little comment-thread spat last year, and I figured that might have been due to some greater angel of reason telling him not to engage. Perhaps not.

Either way, does anyone actually buy the "I don't read his stuff" comment? The man has been here and engaged in a lengthy comment thread discussion or two, and two of his friends are regularly trying to stir up trouble or minimize the contradictory evidence stacked against his claims. I don't have the exact blog post on hand in which he first made his appearance, but will look.

If Scott truly isn't reading anymore, then he's just taking the word of second hand sources to tell him what Jason's written and silently admitting he has no real idea what's being said. Second-hand sources as primary ones? Oddly in-theme.

1/19/2014 05:48:23 am

I can't make it display at the top of the posts, and I'm not sure why. I'll see if I can get it straightened out.

1/19/2014 05:49:12 am

There. I think that fixed it.

1/19/2014 07:00:02 am

Yep, all seems in order now.

Scott on this blog, near the top of an over-1000 comment thread: http://www.jasoncolavito.com/1/post/2013/01/scott-wolters-apparently-non-existent-degree.html
"I find your blog entertaining and the comments interesting, but nothing I would normally care to comment on or defend." (Then goes on to explain the circumstances of his fictional honorary Master's)

Rev. Phil Gotsch

1/19/2014 06:09:09 am

Jason …

In your review of the "Underwater Pyramids" show you DID in fact almost out of the gate toss out your claim that there have been "white racist" ideas invoked in the past regarding the identity and origin of the "Mound Builders" … EVEN THOUGH … the H2 Channel "America Unearthed" and Scott Wolter himself NEVER make such a claim … NEVER …

So … Yes … I can see how you COULD be mistakenly accused of denouncing Scott Wolter as a "racist" …

In my humble opinion, you are not quite as carefully scholarly in your approach as you like to imagine yourself … Words and ideas have consequences ...

1/19/2014 06:22:00 am

You're right, Phil. Words and ideas have consequences, just like when Scott Wolter re-uses, apparently without recognizing it, old racist nineteenth century ideas and gives them new life.

Since you don't deny that the Aztec-Aztalan connection emerged in the 1830s from this race-based milieu, are you suggesting it's wrong to note that this is the origin of the theory Wolter is investigating? I thought you just said ideas have consequences.

1/19/2014 06:29:10 am

I'm saying that a reader COULD easily conclude that YOU are ascribing racist or racialist ideas to Scott Wolter BY IMPLICATION … and that such an approach is … incautious at best ... dishonest at worst, and certainly NOT germane to a 21st century investigation of the GENUINE origins of the Aztec people …

When you tread on "thin ice" you ought not be surprised to find yourself in "cold water" ...

1/19/2014 06:37:17 am

Was that last line intended as a threat? You seem to be accusing me of dishonesty. How is a review of the origins of a myth not germane to an investigation of said myth? The entire reason a legend of Aztecs in Wisconsin exists is BECAUSE of the nineteenth century ideas I discussed. Without that information, it is impossible to understand why that myth took hold in the first place.

What Scott Wolter did last night was hardly an investigation of the "genuine" origins of the Aztec people; to do that would require actual work beyond Wisconsin, which Wolter did not do.

1/19/2014 06:44:52 am

Patiently …

The "America Unearthed" TV shows … are just that … They are TV shows, commercially produced and aired in order to attract a viewing audience long enough to induce them to view the paid adverts …

They are NOT of the nature or quality of "NOVA" or "Frontline" …

But … then neither are these blogs … So what … ???

But, no … How could you possibly think that my comment (above) is any sort of "threat" … ???

Lighten up, Jason … Relax … Take a couple deep breaths … Don't take your self -- or Scott Wolter's TV shows -- so SERIOUSLY …

1/19/2014 06:50:07 am

But, Phil, you told me how you were happy that the show inspired discussion about the real stories behind Wolter's entertainment. Now you're upset at what the real story actually is!

If I understand you correctly, you would like me to see Wolter as an entertainer rather than a researcher? OK, then please ask him to stop going on the radio and writing books to make claims about history that he declares to be completely true and demands "academics" recognize. Oh, and you can tell him to drop the blog where he goes on about "taboo history" that he's "revealing" only in part through his TV show.

When he starts saying he's only a "history-adjacent entertainer" and stops making truth claims, I'll stop caring what he says.

An Over-Educated Grunt

1/19/2014 06:54:17 am

And again, your argument is that just because it isn't NOVA we should accept garbage. I suppose you also believe that humans, being imperfectible, should just go ahead and sin it up? After all, we can't all be saints, so why not accept the lowest level of behavior for all?

You once asked what my problem with you is. That's it. You say it isn't the best it could be, we should just accept it instead of wanting better.

Tara Jordan

1/19/2014 06:54:44 am

Rev. Phil Gotsch
The way I see it,you are not welcome around here.
Why don't you find another hobby?.

1/19/2014 06:55:51 am

Well, whatever …

I am here simply reflecting back to you that I can see how others may indeed (reading-between-the-lines of your blog articles) think that you are imputing racist-racialist ideas to Scott Wolter …

If you don't really care, that is your business ...

1/19/2014 06:57:33 am

If I may, Phil, summarize your position:
(a) I am responsible for what people might think I said, even if I didn't say it.
(b) Scott Wolter is not responsible for the things he does say because it's just entertainment.

Did I get it right?

1/19/2014 07:20:11 am

Phil, Who is so defensive about certain ideas having racist underpinnings, you or Scott? And so what if Jason is suggesting that? So what? Do you think that's somehow actionable? What makes it "incautious?" What is the nature of the "thin ice" of which you speak?

1/19/2014 07:48:29 am

Jason --

What I am saying is that SOME of your readers apparently have gotten the idea that you DO accuse Scott Wolter of racism-racialism, as based upon what you have in fact written …

That isn't MY problem, and apparently you don't think that it is your problem, either …

Jason D.

1/19/2014 08:39:39 am

If anything, Wolter is being disingenuous by not acknowledging the full history of the theories he's exploring/exploiting. I applaud Jason for delving deeper and exposing the full checkered history of these theories and that they are clearly tainted. If Wolter is concerned with appearing as a racist, maybe he should stay away from these tainted claims. That's not on Jason, that's on Scott.

Gary

1/19/2014 10:45:58 am

Most of Dr. Phil's posts seem to have a veiled threat in them.

1/19/2014 10:48:43 am

To coin a phrase: I am here simply reflecting back to you that I can see how others may indeed (reading-between-the-lines of your blog comments) think that you are imputing a threat...

The Other J.

1/20/2014 03:21:28 pm

Rev. Phil: "Lighten up, Jason … Relax … Take a couple deep breaths … Don't take your self -- or Scott Wolter's TV shows -- so SERIOUSLY …"

Once more, with feeling: Rev. Phil, you come here to uphold Wolter's integrity and say you believe what he proffers and talk about his being a man's man who plays hockey, yet continually remind us that it's just television designed to sell soap and nothing on it should be taken seriously.

Which way is it supposed to be, then? It's one of two ways:

1.) Either he's telling the truth and you believe him, in which case his claims are worth investigating; or

2.) He's not telling the truth and is making things up for the sake of drama and drawing in numbers, in which case he isn't truthful, or is at least misleading -- which you're admitting to -- and his claims should still be investigated to show where they're not truthful or are misleading.

What makes you think you can have it both ways, your clergy collar? C'mon, tell me to just "lighten up," we don't get enough patronizing from you.

Harry

1/19/2014 11:47:07 pm

Phil,

Let us assume for the sake of argument that you are right that it is improper to note the racist origins of Wolter's theories because it will cause some uncareful readers to conclude that Wolter himself is a racist. Then, what about Wolter's silly claim that the Smithsonian is suppressing the truth about pre-Columbian history to preserve some (to me, incomprehensible) sense of manifest destiny. You don't seriously believe that, do you? If you don't, doesn't that more direct, "hateful" accusation deserve your criticism as well? And are you willing to do so?

Even you do believe it, does not making the claim unfairly tarnish all of the archaeologists who hold the same, conventional views of pre-Columbian history as the Smithsonian? And, by the way, if you do believe it, can you please explain what the hell Wolter is talking about?

1/19/2014 07:13:05 am

Rev. Phil
Most amongst us have no intention on debating with you,unfortunately we don't play in the same league.
Get back to me,if and when Scott Wolter finally agrees to have a
debate with me.

1/19/2014 07:51:09 am

Tara (whoever you are) … I don't come here for "debate," so your disinclination matters to me not at all …

BUT .. If you wish to debate Scott Wolter, you are FREE to contact him and set it up … I am his friend and professional colleague -- not his agent ...

1/19/2014 04:57:08 pm

Unfortunately,your best buddy Scott "standing on the shoulders of giants" can run but he cant hide.Even amongst his idolaters,some are awakening to his blatant dishonesty, accusing him of "insulting his followers intelligence" (an oxymoron).
Wolter will eventually end up in the dustbin of Tabloid reporting.The man is already a laughing stock,& it won't get any better with time.Scott Wolter worst enemy is Scott Wolter....

Jase

1/19/2014 07:18:02 am

Jason, your excellent critiques of shows such as Ancient Aliens and America Unearthed do not cause me to enjoy the shows any less. Once you understand where the ideas for the shows are coming from and how wildly inaccurate the presentation is, it becomes that much more hilarious and entertaining to watch.

I would be interested to know a little more about whether the material and ideas in Morning of the Magicians that made in into Von Daniken's Ancient Astronauts theory were provided by some sort of disinformation campaign as a calculated effort to weaken traditional Judeo/Christian religious beliefs in the West. I know that Lovecraft and people like Ignatius Donnelly were strong influences, but was there also a conscious effort by marxists or other leftists to discredit and weaken belief in traditional established religion?

1/19/2014 07:21:56 am

And if so, did it work?

1/19/2014 07:22:16 am

That's actually a fascinating question, and I did a few blog posts (later combined for a chapter in my print-on-demand and eBook Faking History) where I looked at Soviet ancient astronaut theories. (Search for "Soviet" and you should find them.) There is evidence that the Soviets supported UFO and ancient astronaut work in the 1950s in order to discredit Western religion, and Morning of the Magicians makes quite plain the debt it owes to Soviet sources, which are frequently cited. Much of the evidence comes from declassified CIA and NSA documents, which I've posted in my Library. Interestingly, as soon as the West started having its ancient astronaut craze in the 1960s, the Soviets promptly dropped the idea as unscientific. I'm sure that wasn't a complete coincidence.

1/19/2014 08:50:52 am

Thank you for the reply. I will check out your blog posts and book Faking History. The two books by Christopher Andrews on the Mitrokhin Archive have some entertaining examples of how the KGB was occasionally ingenious at spreading false information and theories in order to ideologically subvert their enemies and influence world public opinion.

Will

1/19/2014 08:41:44 am

Dan

1/19/2014 11:07:04 am

This video was just posted to Youtube today. Its a takedown of the "Lost Colony" episode where one of the guest talks about how badly Wolter lied about the Roanoke evidence:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5gE9OnUI-No&feature=youtube_gdata_player

CFC

1/19/2014 11:13:38 am

This is just Wolter's way of diverting attention away from his inability to respond to the points that Jason makes in his reviews. When you can't rationally discuss the facts, attack the one who can. A typical pseudoscience tactic.

Chris

1/19/2014 11:26:27 am

Jason,

Two things: First, Wolter is sadly mistaken. I gave up watching his show a long time ago and have only been watching it vicariously through your posts, as I'm sure others have taken to doing as well. Second, my apologies, (I really did enjoy the post) but the most memorable thing I took from it was that you used to review "The O.C." That just tickles me in so many ways, haha.

1/19/2014 11:49:23 am

Not only did I review "The O.C." in its first year, the producers paid me what I presume was a compliment when they used wording from my review of the show's pilot in a fourth-season episode where the Cohens present Ryan with a slideshow of how he changed their lives.

1/19/2014 12:09:34 pm

Haha, amazing! I remember watching that show with some of my female college friends, though I stopped when it started going down hill halfway through season 2. Do have a link to your old reviews?

1/19/2014 12:20:44 pm

Sadly, the website I wrote for no longer exists, and when they merged into what is now TV.com they purged all of the old material, including my reviews. So far as I know, they are gone forever.

Gunn link

1/19/2014 11:38:27 am

Jason says: "The phenomenon of the hate-blog is typically defined as a blog that is obsessively focused on posting negative information about a specific individual or entity."

How is it that this does not describe your own focus, Jason, on both Wolter and AU? Anyone who reads yours blogs on a regular basis knows that you do seem to be obsessively focused on giving negative information about both Wolter and AU. Most people think alike, and I sure have noticed it...and commented on it. And I'm not Wolter's friend. I'm basically neutral. I don't like Wolter's take on most spiritual matters, but I feel that some of his earlier work connected with the KRS is very credible--and will be considered historically helpful in the long run. Most of his AU shows are nonsensical, but if he keeps at it long enough, perhaps eventually something of actual consequence will be found.

Though I'll say again that you provide a good public service for most of the stuff you do, you come across as being hung-up on Wolter. We have seen the back-and-forth between both camps here, but the inescapable fact is that you come across to some people as having an agenda against Wolter--as though it is personal. You, yourself, have set the tone, and....

You have in the past made some folks, myself included, feel unnecessary heat from the "white racist" crowd you seem to attract. You remind me a bit of Marlon Brando, in this regard. You want us to all feel continual shame for what other people in other generations did, and you bring this to your blog, whereupon some of your regulars begin looking for these white racists behind every tree, attacking innocent visitors who stumble by. I've given lengthy comments in the past here about what I have perceived to be unnecessary racist rabble-rousing.

Rev. Phil: "When you tread on "thin ice" you ought not be surprised to find yourself in "cold water" ..."

I see the "thin ice" as being the unfortunate attitude that Jason often brings to the table. As I've said before, there are different ways of saying about the same thing. Jason's remarks are often inflammatory, as though he has very little patience for fringe or alternative history. He is on a personal mission. "Have Gun, Will Travel." But instead of a gun, Jason travels the internet far and wide with a poison pen for those he musters up sufficient distain to shoot at. Wolter and AU get shot at on a regular basis, which makes one wonder about the nature of the coverage.

What are all of the motivating factors for Jason wishing to cover Wolter so thoroughly, and AU? We don't want to ascribe possible medical conditions here, but I don't think it would be out of line for me, as someone who has disclosed having OCD, to point out some of the usual or typical symptoms, which of course could be mistaken as something else...abnormal stubbornness, for example, or a desperate need for revenge...a desire to scorn, which could be construed as a form of hatred, taken to an extreme.

I myself used to have a very vengeful personality, when I was younger and not so wise. I am not diagnosing Jason, I'm only pointing out that some of his behavior actually does come across as obsessive (in the general sense), and of a negative nature, yes, towards specific targets: Wolter and AU.

Simply put, I don't think these figures or entities are nearly the threat he's making them out to be. The entertainment is flawed, but the damage isn't as great as Jason is making it out to be, in my opinion. Most people see through the plot-lines, but they still like to be entertained. I would say that AU is intended more as an entertainment show than a history show. It's not so much "teaching improper history" as it is "exploring alternative history." Of course, the viewpoints are subjective.

People see through the stupid stuff, but if one is interested in history, he or she may be attracted to the show because of the genre, but probably not expecting much anyway. This is the mindless entertainment Phil is talking about, I think: its just a show. Wolter is not an actual history villain.

However, personal jabs do generate emotional responses, whether intended or not. Some of Jason's problems stem from him coming across as stirring up trouble when it comes to charges of white racism and claiming Native Americans aren't being adequately represented, and blaming both Wolter and AU for the same.

In my opinion, Jason has been trying to make Wolter wear a collar with "racist" written on it. Who wouldn't feel offended? The same with Steve, and feeling offended because of the projected scorn over the perceived improbabilities of Templar/Sinclairs coming to medieval America. Others pick up on Jason's attitude and carry it too far. I'm saying he makes it too easy for his most loyal followers to castigate Wolter even further, making him out to be that "History Devil" on TV.

I would think Wolter's existence as a TV host would Jason's own future more secure,

1/19/2014 11:42:20 am

This from Gunn, who admits that he does not read any of my writing on ancient astronauts, which makes up more than half of my blog posts. You diagnosed an obsession from a set of TV reviews, which is only a fraction of my blog posts, and an even smaller segment of my work in total.

Gunn

1/19/2014 11:51:59 am

We're talking about a sincere focus on one person.

1/19/2014 11:54:01 am

He's the host of the show. How would you review the show without discussing the person who presents himself as its driving force? Could you review "What Would Ryan Lochte Do?" without discussing Ryan Lochte?

1/19/2014 11:58:17 am

You know I'm not alone in thinking that you've been riding Wolter too hard. It comes across as crass and spiteful, and probably isn't helping your career in the long run. I feel that you are doing a pretty good job, but can do better when it comes to not coming across as too hostile.

1/19/2014 12:02:57 pm

But he's the host of the show and speaks of its findings in the first person. How would you criticize his obviously incorrect claims in a way that ignores the fact that he said them? He has chosen to personalize the program by making into an adventure narrative of his "quest" for the "truth." In so doing, he had made it impossible to completely divorce his ideas from him. That's a choice he made (purposely so) in order to use his personality and persona to lend likeability and credibility to his otherwise low-evidence findings.

1/19/2014 12:25:15 pm

Yes, I can see that this may be so. Part of his persona is built on the fact that he is already perceived as being an outspoken advocate for alternative history...well, you know, because of his initial involvement with the KRS and the ensuing insults. They are companions, still. We need to leave him room for redemption on some of these other issues.

1/19/2014 11:50:32 am

"...would help make Jason's own future more secure."

We long for a kinder, more gentle Jason.

1/19/2014 12:32:23 pm

Yes …

These interesting questions could be -- SHOULD be -- hashed and discussed WITHOUT resort to snarky comments and personal insults ...

J.A. Dickey

1/19/2014 12:37:35 pm

Gunn, i respect your take on the KRS and the grove of poplar
trees. Part of AU's charm is its entertainment value. Jason often
is a critic's critic but he is young. I can remember when Bosley
Crowther reviewed BONNIE AND CLYDE in the late 60s and
lost his job. He once had the ability to trash films and trunctuate
a play's run with a scathing review, and if he liked a leftwing cause it practically became a platform plank at the next DNC.
Scott fears Jason because he has a potential to be as apt as was Roger Ebert. I feel AU + SW have less to worry about becuz
they have a solid market niche who did not go get a Masters
or a Ph.D in History or History/Hyphenate. Gunn, he is young.
SW is recently talking about doing a show on the Anti-Masons.

1/19/2014 11:50:49 am

And by the way, what exactly do you think would be different in my reviews if this were "America Unearthed with David Childress"?

1/19/2014 11:53:26 am

Not seeing Wolter scorned.

1/19/2014 11:55:37 am

So your problem is that you just like Wolter? Would you be here at all if someone other than Wolter were hosting the show? I've been much meaner to David Childress. Does that bother you?

1/19/2014 12:11:02 pm

No, I am very selective in what I put into my brain, as I only have so much time on my hands to waste. I don't know who Childress is. I can and have done this with most sports, too, which I consider to be an absolute waste of time. There are things one doesn't want to fill his head with. This has left me to only consider your attitude towards Wolter, and Steve and perhaps a few others here.

Yes, I'm here primarily because of Wolter's show. Like many others, I first came here several months ago as the result of AU. Right now, I'm mostly focused on this blog, like a soap opera for old people. Admittedly, my world is growing smaller, which is why I don't know or care who this Childress fellow is.

I've got to save room in my brain for the important stuff, like understanding stoneholes from every approachable angle...and with as much light as possible. I can zero in on stoneholes like you can zero in on Wolter! Obsession all the way, man!

Bobby

1/19/2014 02:45:51 pm

What if this Childress knew some important information about stone holes? You'd never know about it.

1/19/2014 06:52:17 pm

Gunn;

Let me get this straight, you criticize Jason for having a narrow focus on AU/Wolter when that focus only exists in your mind because you only choose to read Jason's works on that one subject. And you see that as Jason's fault?

Runestone Rubbish

1/19/2014 10:15:48 pm

Gunn Sinclair is feeling sorry for Scott Wolter because Scott believes the KRS to be the "Rosetta Stone", the foundation to all his activity

tom

1/21/2014 07:13:54 am

Can you just shut up about that runestone? It's fake. Get over it. Jeez.....

1/19/2014 11:49:31 am

Scott Wolter has as next week's episode a look at the events
of April 1865 and their ramifications down to the current hour.
I have a hubris and EGO equal to SW or Jason in that I have
looked at a recent NICK CAGE movie and feel i can write up
a short review of the upcoming episode sight unseen and be
fair to our 15th, 16th and 17th POTUSes as i do not unduly
carp at both Jeff Davis and Thaddeus Stevens from either a
SCALAWAG or COPPERHEAD perspective. The 1850s, 1860s
and 1870s saw John Locke's ideas put to the test in the worst
way and over the next hundred years we saw our nation heal
from a national tragedy. I feel that SW has hurled at Jason an
internet salvo prior to this episode, and he may be feeling a
tad uncomfortable right now because he has deeply delved into
a murky chapter of our history. The firing of WAR Dep't Sec
EDWIN STANTON brought about a senate trial whose verdict
was contingent on the vote done by Senator Ross of Kansas.
My home state senators, Sumner & Wilson thought our 17th
POTUS to be quite guilty. Curiously enough a Supreme Court
decision later on, and a tendency to quote the better angels of
ANDREW JACKSON's nature by FDR allowed a strengthening
of the stewardship reasons for presidential decisions. Senator
Ross has a telling lead paragraph in the book he wrote that describes why he voted the way he did. Most of us now would
tend to agree with CHARLES SUMNER's CRA of 1875 because
LBJ bravely signed a much tougher one in 1964. Personally I
would not change the 1965 Voting Rights Act because I feel that
insufficient time has passed but I feel the South of today is a
vast improvement on the Old South I can remember from the national news reports in my childhood. At least Nick Cage when
doing his movie stint knew that like good ole GWTW in 1938 or
even RAINTREE COUNTY as a significant film in its own right
that like the recent film COPPERHEAD has a look at the North
and the war's impact, fiction allows us to say things a dry and
capable docudrama and documentary doesn't. Ms. E. Tayor did
act well in Raintree County but Monty Clift was both puzzling
and also somewhat painful to watch. SW may have been too
glib and superficial in the current "Aztec" episode, but he now
blunders into the bone of contention zone between EDWIN STANTON and ANDREW JOHNSON. Succinctly put, Ole Andy
(1.) was a slave owner who came to agree with Honest Abe
and his debate stances of 1858. (2.) thought the War Dep't
leaked like a sieve, hence the untimely demise of poor young
Ulric Dalgren on that raid that tried to reach Libby Prison.
(3.) quite correct in saying a cabinet official has two choices:
loyalty or resignation, and that presidents can be blithering
idiots from time to time and stay in office, perhaps. I feel that
at best over the past 150 years there have been only three
good biographies of Andrew Johnson and that Hans Trefousse
has the honor being shared with only two other individuals.
Yes, if SW had the intuition that the Rockwall episode had flaws
and was overly drawn out, his internal compass is telling him
he has blundered into the dark side of the Id of yesteryears
more violent Copperheads. If curiously enough, Tennessee
Johnson was a well informed Scalawag who ended up with
Lincoln's enemies and less of his friends, and had upset the
seccessionists of 1860/61 with his bold,ringing defense of the
Unionist cause during those dire months when a legendary
cannon boomed, yes... SW has gone where angels fear to
tread with a blithe arrogance that passage of time half forgives.
Please read DRUM TAPS by Walt Whitman and then think thru
this episode that is most likely vastly inferior to Nick Cage's
very fiction aspected movie. If one wants to get a feel for the
times, look at Robert Redford's THE CONSPIRATOR as well
as the most excellent way Sally Field steps into being our
tragically fated and controversial First Lady, she is one of
the highlights of the film LINCOLN, the other charm is that
the Congressional Record verbatim was part of the script.
SW has blundered beyond his keen, he tends to MC quite
well, and as a gadfly on academia he is compelling to watch,
and although he is not a racist, nor was Thaddeus Stevens,
and if Andy Johnson was only slightly more bigoted than
Woodrow Wilson, Harry S. Truman or even Huey Long but
did not think in Segregationist terms, SW's blithe ignorance
of the nuances of the time period will be most amusing to
watch. This perhaps is not a major disaster looming, only
a rather complex can of worms. If Andrew Johnson is most
legendary for who he pardoned, why did he let Mary Surratt
hang? Was he a BOSS HOGG style politician even if capable
of an idealistic forthright stance? He did defend Honest Abe
and did accept the 13th Amendment, but his Unionism was
not behind the next two. SW is on his high horse, and even if
the Aztecs over 500 years of time explored more of our vast
continent than Spaniards did after Columbus, I shall not rake
SW over history's c

1/19/2014 11:56:06 am

sorry about that, typo

history's c~urious conjectures and his take on the same.

i think i did do a rather longish post. Next Week indeedy looms!

1/19/2014 12:16:59 pm

We had two cities less than 100 miles apart, and spies
of the tyme abundantly in both. Libby Prison on the near
outskirts of Richmond was to become a funnel system
for ANDERSONVILLE, an attempt to liberate any and all
P.O.Ws is being a mercy angel. misspelled DAHLGREN

http://civilwarcavalry.com/?p=298 Here is a non-wiki link.

BobM

1/19/2014 12:02:36 pm

Jesus Jason, I just spent 90 seconds reading that bloody right wingnut website, and now I need a bath. I blame you :-).

1/19/2014 12:04:37 pm

I've come to respect Gunn's take on the KRS even though
he might be right, I've come to respect Jason's take on the
KRS even though he might be right, but AU's SW is not at the
level of Hans Trefousse in terms of the Civil War era, indeed.

Walt

1/19/2014 12:59:38 pm

"Normally I do not respond to personal attacks ... but I do make an exception when they are made by prominent fringe figures..."

There's your error, and that's what makes it personal which you so vehemently deny. If you ignore a personal attack from one person, but not another, it is personal.

The comments to your blog posts (posted mostly by a handful of groupies who love every blog entry) are certainly hateful, but your entries are not. You should just stay above it all, content knowing that your blog entries are fair and balanced. Scott's hosting an entertainment show on ad-supported network television so he benefits from every mention of his show, good or bad. It's not on PBS or the BBC, so if people are watching and talking, he wins and presumably makes a buck.

Personally, I'm rooting for him to get something right and make a ground-breaking discovery but I'm not holding my breath.

1/19/2014 01:03:54 pm

I don't really have the luxury of ignoring it when someone with a mass media platform attacks me, as for example David Childress did in 2006. It's not that it was a personal attack on me but that it was from a prominent figure and therefore needs to have a public response because new readers who don't know me will see the attack and want to know if it's true.

If Wolter truly found something groundbreaking, we'd have heard it by now. H2 would have trumpeted it in every press release.

1/19/2014 03:51:56 pm

I don't really blame you for responding, it's just clear to me that it's personal. And I think he started it, if it matters. But, it's probably tough for him to separate what you've written from what's appeared in the comments. Collectively, the content of his show has been mocked, his backpack, the contents of his backpack (his own book), his shorts, his legs, his staged conversations, and of course the production quality. That's just off the top of my head. No one has mocked his vehicle or his family, but that's about it.

If he does someday actually discover something, I'm confident your blog will say so and give him credit, but he'll still be mocked for something by you or those who comment. I'm guessing he agrees and would consider that hateful.

I'd like to see what he claims are "outright lies" so I hope he takes you up on the offer.

1/19/2014 10:35:12 pm

Does it make any difference to you that I have also criticized Giorgio Tsoukalos's hats printed with an outline of his hair that he gave away at ComicCon? Or David Childress's commissioned oil portrait of himself as Indiana Jones? These figures' self-presentation is part of the package they create to make their ideas palatable. For the record, I've also mocked Josh Bernstein for dressing like Indiana Jones on Digging for the Truth.

1/20/2014 09:01:42 am

I don't have a problem with anything you've written or I wouldn't continue to read it. I'm just saying I can understand how Scott would feel that this site is a place where he will be mocked and ridiculed regardless of the correctness of his positiion. Whether that constitutes a "hate-blog" I don't know.

Coridan

1/20/2014 11:14:43 pm

If there were an episode discussing a theory with the major facts laid out and evidence supporting both sides and wasn't done as some goofy reality adventure; I would certainly give Wolter and AU credit for it, point it out as a great episode, and then likely be disappointed the next week.

People seem to think all skepticism is personal because it is adversarial. This is like a debate club though, weare certainly capable of acknowledging good points on the other side.

1/19/2014 01:08:29 pm

Hoo boy, I just love the "shoot the messenger" mentality that is running rampant on this blog. Allow me to expound.

For good or ill, Scott Wolter is delivering a message. Jason has examined this message and found that some of its parts have ugly origins. Sometimes, the origin is racial, sometimes political and sometimes both. But instead of taking a closer look at the message, to separate the racial/political bias from the facts, Jason is to be admonished and punished for daring to bring such existing bias into the light. If Scott wanted to be taken seriously, he would do himself a huge favor by trying to maintain a semblance of objectivity. Unfortunately, he hasn't.

Consider the following examples: Scott traveled to Ireland to consult an expert in Ogham, saying he found evidence of it on a canyon wall in Oklahoma. The expert showed him an actual example and told him that what he found WAS NOT Ogham. For the remainder of the episode, Scott continued to claim he had found Ogham/proto-Ogham in Oklahoma. How is this not dishonest? Why consult an expert if his analysis will be summarily dismissed? In the last episode, he talked to a state archaeologist that explained Aztalan in Wisconsin was named so purely on the whim of ONE MAN. He further explained that the site was from the Mississippian culture, whose influence stretched from the northern U.S. to Mexico. He said the Aztecs appeared much later, 300 years later, in fact. Instead of acknowledging that the Aztecs and Mississippians were two separate entities, Scott concluded that the Aztecs were, in fact, the Mississippians! This is forcing facts to fit a preconceived narrative. Again, how is this not dishonest?

Let's play a hypothetical scenario. Suppose the Volkswagon Beetle is produced, per Hitler's request, becomes popular in the U.S., and the profits from sales are funneled into the Nazi war effort. Let's say someone reveals the truth behind this scenario. According to the logic espoused here, that individual should be harried and castigated for calling everyone who owned a Beetle a Nazi sympathizer. How in the hell does that make any rational sense?

Anyone can investigate an idea with racial/political bias, without supporting that bias. The trouble comes when, in spite of the obvious bias, the idea is used to support one's own narrative. For Scott to support and use an idea from a known Nazi sympathizer, knowing the idea is colored by a pro-white, Aryan ideology, only to say such ideological influence is "irrelevant and unimportant", destroys any objectivity he should be exercising.

Let's not forget, words have consequences.

1/19/2014 01:27:12 pm

Mildly said in SW's defense... he commented to a comment.
Wisely said in Jason's defense... SW likes being academia's
glib & urbane gadfly. I feel SW likes the way his blog is going.

1/19/2014 01:47:33 pm

Only Me, I think one would have to know exactly what Aryan ideology is being espoused, and analyze the situation to see whether aspects of the ideology, broken down, can be construed as being "innocent." What parts make up the whole? Should one have to carry the full burden of past history if only "innocent" aspects are being considered and talked about? Are there, indeed, any innocent angles? Can a portion of a bad apple still be good?

If the situation is as egregious as Jason says it is, maybe Wolter will consider doing a better job of separating acceptable material from unacceptable material (within sources) before presenting it to the public. Wolter could say, "Some of this has been identified with...however...," and make his case.

Obviously, Jason wants him to be more responsible. This may be a suitable moral judgment call, or an unnecessary intrusion, depending on one's viewpoint--which is usually subjective, if not completely biased. How dare we venture forth from here?

1/19/2014 04:51:55 pm

Gunn, please tell me you're not serious.

We're talking about an ideology that promoted whites of German and Nordic descent as members of a master race. An ideology that promoted non-Aryans as inferior. An ideology that led to the deaths of millions of Jews, the wholesale slaughter of Soviet civilians and plunged every world power into war. An ideology that stole symbolism and ceremony from Christianity, even as it used such symbolism and ceremony to mock it.

No, Gunn, there are no "innocent" angles or aspects to this ideology. That is why knowing which ideas that find their start based on its teachings must be examined with utmost care.

How dare we venture forth? By demanding the same from the Scott Wolters AND the academics what we ask of ourselves...tolerance, accountability, common sense and objectivity when needed.

1/20/2014 04:50:26 am

Of course, I'm not in any way suggesting that the Aryan philosophy is good and correct. I'm merely saying that Wolter may be picking a few suitable cherries from an overall bad tree. Unless you know exactly what he said, and from the angle he approached the tree, you can't say he didn't pick a suitable cherry to eat.

Similarly, one can cut off a portion of a bad cherry, and still eat the good portion. You are saying there is no good in the cherry tree, no tiny bits of fruit worth eating.

Everyone has a different taste for things, but you want to tell Wolter exactly what he should and should not eat...where he should or should not get his material and information from.

Jason should be more clear in exactly how Wolter has offended his tender sensibilities, and perhaps you, Only Me, would want to delve into the matter to see if it's as serious as Jason is painting it to be. He's basically trying to make Wolter out to be a History Devil, and we should know more precisely what the charges are if we are to determine how honest and open Jason and Wolter are being about this "history-crime."

My guess is that Wolter is not in any way trying to glorify or revive Nazi ideology, though Jason appears to think he is...though unintentionally, perhaps. But strangely enough, the one being charged with hate here isn't Wolter, it's Jason. What an odd turn-of-events.

So, should we cut Wolter some slack, or should we press on to find out exactly the nature of his Nazi-related crimes? We certainly don't want to harshly judge a man too early, or wrongfully, do we? Well, do we? Do we want to label Wolter a racist, or not? Yes, I'm saying we should be careful here....

Joe

1/20/2014 07:32:07 am

Gunn,

I do not think you are understanding the main point Jason and others are trying to convey. I do NOT think anyone here thinks Wolter is racist. In fact I think several people have stated over and over that there is zero evidence of Wolter having any racial motivations. But the main argument that Jason is stating is that many of these hypothesizes and ideas are created in a race based idea. The early history of the field of anthropology is filled with arm chair observations and practices with people utilizing preconceived ideas on native populations. The issue we all have is that Wolter is utilizing these myths and ideas without understanding their origins prior to presenting them as a legitimate base to build his own ideas.

The second point that you ask is if we can remove the racial overtones of these old theories to find good points to utilize. But if you take out the racial base these theories have little ground to stand on. These theories use the idea that the artifacts and or sites are too complex for the observed native populations to create or utilize these sites. So it must have been a foreign, European group that must have arrived and did the work at these sites. This is the problem, cause if you remove the idea that the local population was too primitive then there is actually no evidence of a European influence at these sites. For a good example lets take a look at your stone hole theory, you base the idea of the stone holes as a scandinavian or norse creation because of the KRS. But lets for argument sakes state that the KRS is a fake artifact created in the 1800's. If this is the case there is no sound argument to relate stone holes to any scandinavian voyage since there are no additional evidence to tie it to northern european people.

I find it odd that all the Wolter reports make claims of Jason making it personal if you “read between the lines” in these cases I find the reader is adding tone as they read it. If you look at just the words that Jason has put down he mostly debates the points of argument, I agree at time he does inject sarcasm. But this could easily be viewed as adding an entertaining approach to his reviews. I am sure the Rev. can agree that Wolter does the same in making his arguments on his show, interviews and books when he makes claim of the unseen from the “shadows” academic enemy that is looking to hold him back from revealing the “truth”

Gunn Sinclair link

1/20/2014 09:10:05 am

Joe, I know people aren't necessarily saying Wolter is a racist, only that he may come across as a racist because of some of his source material, or that he's being way-careless about political correctness.

I'm saying we should further analyze the situation to see why or how Jason feels Wolter is stupidly doing so, if this be the case, though it may still be construed as being an insult, either way, as it's calling into question Wolter's manner and use of material. In other words, is Wolter not smart enough to know of the negative aspects of what he's researching and writing about? Doesn't he care?

Or, is this proposed modern-times, Nazi-related crime in Jason's head only imaginary? Mostly imaginary? A smidgen imaginary? Well, obviously still real enough to bug Wolter about.

This seems to be one of Wolter's biggest social crimes to Jason, the other being not representing Native Americans adequately. But, does Jason himself give Native Americans their full due when considering their stories? This is a touchy area.

Also, Joe says: "For a good example lets take a look at your stone hole theory, you base the idea of the stone holes as a Scandinavian or Norse creation because of the KRS. But lets for argument sakes state that the KRS is a fake artifact created in the 1800's. If this is the case there is no sound argument to relate stone holes to any Scandinavian voyage since there are no additional evidence to tie it to northern European people."

Okay, fair enough, Joe. Here's your new problem now: take away the memorial KRS and there are still plenty of other accumulated evidences up here, not the least dozens upon dozens of stoneholes, STILL with other corroborations, such as aged, Scandinavian-medieval carvings, and numerous metal objects indicating Norse expeditions into this area.

Even with the KRS never discovered, there are still the stoneholes surrounding the knoll it was found on, and the stoneholes marking up the entire Whetstone River in nearby SD, as I've said, where the oceanic waterways reach far inland and converge...perfectly. We can now know why that stonehole cluster is there.

When you draw a straight compass line from this far inland SD location (dubbed New Gotaland), to Duluth, the line will run over Runestone Hill, which I believe existed, marked up with stoneholes, before the KRS was even placed there.

So, thanks for the opportunity to explain that we don't even need the KRS to see the medieval Scandinavian intrusions up here...it's just the obvious icing on the cake. Let's have a party!

1/20/2014 09:56:11 am

"Or, is this proposed modern-times, Nazi-related crime in Jason's head only imaginary? Mostly imaginary? A smidgen imaginary?"

Consider this excerpt from Jason's review of Scott's book "Akhenaten to the Founding Fathers":

*Wolter then tells how he bought a copy of Nazi collaborator Jacques de Mahieu’s Templars in America and had a friend summarize it for him because he can’t read French. He accepts at face value, without bothering to consult primary sources, Mahieu’s assertion that the Templars were “obsessed” with ocean travel, and he asserts that the Templars minted their silver coins from silver mines in America. Wolter defends Mahieu against charges of racism by citing his “detailed and reasoned arguments”—argument Wolter just admitted he never read. Wolter further says that we should trust Mahieu because he was a Nazi since he would have had access to “secret” documents and enough disrespect for the Catholic Church to reveal them. Mahieu, as a Nazi, advocated a Viking-Aryan dominion over the Americas, but Wolter calls the political influences on Mahieu’s work “irrelevant and unimportant.” This is rather a double standard: alternative writers’ beliefs are irrelevant, while “academics” are interrogated for their “dogma.”*

This is a prime example of my earlier points. This is material in Scott's OWN BOOK...but Jason is accused of lying, race-baiting, etc., from those who are uncomfortable with it. No, this isn't a "crime" or implication of Nazi sympathizing on Scott's part, but it is a potential landmine for which he should have exercised more of what is an essential part of any scientific research--objectivity.

The bias is there; Scott is aware of this, yet he uses the idea as support for his own narrative. Cherry-picking? Yes, but I don't think the fruits of his labors are digestible. If I were to hazard a guess, I'd say that his investment in his Templar narrative is more important than any negativity he may receive. In my opinion, it's both willful ignorance and carelessness...BECAUSE he doesn't care. I think we can agree that is a dangerous mindset.

1/20/2014 10:27:17 am

Gunn,

First, per your quote statement “STILL with other corroborations, such as aged, Scandinavian-medieval carvings, and numerous metal objects indicating Norse expeditions into this area.” I am not aware of such medieval artifacts please let me know what you are referencing. Also in my scenario the KRS is a non authentic item so its location has no bearing. So the idea of it lining up a cluster of stoneholes with a location of a false item with a city founded in the 1800's really does not add up to any scandinavian influence.

The most important point of Jason's argument and most people that agree with Jason is that Wolter does not do the proper research. He is utilizing old dis proven ideas and theories as the base of his work. When Jason points out the origins in some of these have race based reasoning or in other cases outright fabrications he is labeled a hater and is accused personal attacks. I still do not understand if you provide a counter argument to someones theory that you are personally attacking that person. I do agree there are some here on both sides that have brought it down to personal insults and as a group I think we should avoid it. You like to argue that Jason is making it personal compared to his other reviews yet you have admitted that you have not read any of his other reviews to see if it personal or just how Jason reviews all material.

I could easily make a similar claim on you Mr. Gunn, any time some makes comments that appear to disagree with you on KRS or question Olof Ohman you are quick to insult them with petty name calling.

But it does appear that the supportors of Mr. Wolter do not even attempt to defend the susbstantive points that Jason writes about. But instead want to make comments about his personal life and question Jason's motivations. Maybe we should ask about Scotts motivations, is he really trying to uncover the “truth”. If so how come he is unable to follow the most basic research practices or archeological standards? I do not think Scott is a dumb man so it is reasonable to think his motivation is for public attention and noteriary

1/21/2014 07:36:53 am

Only Me and Joe:

"...but Wolter calls the political influences on Mahieu’s work “irrelevant and unimportant."

One can see here that Wolter made an effort to distance himself from the elements Jason so much detests, those Nazi negatives. This shows that Wolter did consider the material he was using, that he was not ignorant of what he was doing, and that he was satisfied in his own mind that the elements he was espousing were not in any way promoting the Nazi agenda. You see, one can talk about the past without endorsing everything being discussed.

Talking about something is one thing; advocating for something is an entirely different matter. If nothing else, Wolter is being judged unfairly, I believe, leaving the impression with some that he has Nazi leanings. I'm just saying that Wolter is neither a racist, nor an advocate for Nazism--dumbly or on purpose. There is no crime here, only the continuing harsh treatment of a man who is espousing some pretty weird stuff, admittedly.

Joe, forget it. I'm not going into anything else KRS here on this thread. Though I don't like to say so, I see you as yet another belittling trouble-maker at times. You want to throw some barbs...just sharp enough to be felt.

Right now you are very uneducated about the KRS. Please look back at some of my recent comments, and click on a green Gunn somewhere. But some people can't be persuaded. You are nowhere close to "Gunn, almost thou persuadeth me." For now, your mind is too closed to see any of the history-truth I've presented here. Others see credibility in the KRS, you don't, and apparently that's the way you'll stay until the "academics" become more vocal about its authenticity. We hail that day, and it's already upon us.

But you can't be close-minded and still throw barbs. Joe, you can put this KRS thing together, but only if you allow yourself to try.

1/21/2014 11:57:34 am

I'm glad to see we agree that Wolter is neither a racist nor advocating racism and Nazism.

My point in all this is that Jason, also, is being judged unfairly and has received harsh treatment for exploring the origins of ideas that were founded in racism or ideology and the reasons they persist. He is also innocent of a crime, but is constantly attacked because people confuse the likability of hosts with criticism of their product.

If a mutual friend or colleague said "One plus one equals three!", and you or I asked how he came to that conclusion, only to have various people attack us for being "haters" or "jealous" (not to mention many other colorful terms), I'm sure we'd be left scratching our heads in confusion. Like Rev. Phil has said, let's stick to the facts.

1/21/2014 03:15:00 pm

Gunn,

I did not confirm or deny the authenticity of the KRS. I was just using the framework of your theory to show if you remove a major compentant of the theory the rest can not fully support the original idea. If you remove the racial basis to these theories the rest does not add to their conclusion. But just like Only Me stated no one is claiming that Wolter is a racist. I think the issue most people have is the fact that Wolter is ignorant of the origin of these theories, or just chooses to ignore the origins of these ideas.

I have reviewed your site a couple of times but still do not see how the evidence adds up. I am not denying that it is possible, just not neccessarily agreeing with your theory. But I appreciate your dedication to the topic and hope you good look into your work.

Again I do not think that Wolter is a racist but I disagree with your statement. “One can see here that Wolter made an effort to distance himself from the elements Jason so much detests, those Nazi negatives. This shows that Wolter did consider the material he was using, that he was not ignorant of what he was doing, and that he was satisfied in his own mind that the elements he was espousing were not in any way promoting the Nazi agenda.” Wolter stated he finds political influences on Mahieu’s work “irrelevant and unimportant.” Mahieu was a Nazi sympathizer and later headed the Argentinian chapter of CEDADE a neo-Nazi organization. Based on this information I would think his political agenda directly affected his theories of Viking and Aryan pre-columbian voyages to North America. Again I do not think Wolter is a racist or Nazi sympathizer, but it is difficult to accept his attempts to cherry pick ideas from a known Nazi supporter to further his own idea.

1/19/2014 02:03:15 pm

I think more than one nerve has been *touched* here ...

1/20/2014 03:49:11 pm

Then stop touching people, reverend.

Brent

1/19/2014 03:51:13 pm

Phil,
I am sick of a spiritual leader (especially one of the Christian faith, as that is my own chosen faith) so cavalierly defending intellectually dishonest claims- from ANY source- simply because its "entertainment." Especially since this particular source constantly declares its finding/assertions as "the truth." Truth should be held in the highest regard by spiritual leaders- whether its a human/intuitive truth or a scientific/historical one.

America Unearthed and Scott Wolter misrepresent history, and dirty the word "truth" with every episode- loudly. THIS SHOULD BOTHER YOU.

For instance, I cannot stand Joel Osteen. Why? Because he states many things as being Truth...and a Bibilical Truth, since he is the pastor of a Christian church. But he- very frequently- makes statements that are NOT Biblical...you will find NO evidence supporting them in the Bible. THIS BOTHERS ME.

I could just write it off and say "well, he's really just a self-help guy...he helps people feel good about themselves" but I DONT because A) He is a very prominent figure and B) He is perceived as an authority on Christianity and the Bible. Ergo, whether he is qualified or not (according to my research and that of others, he isn't) for the position, he IS a very public representation of Christianity (and therefore the Bible) to the public.

So I do NOT just shrug off his views/books/sermons/words...because he is a prominent figure in Christianity and I believe his teachings do HARM to the entire faith. I try and educate others I know about how many of his statements are unbiblical...not because I hate him, but because I want to counteract the harm I believe he does to the faith- just like many of us try to counteract the harm done to history and peoples perceptions of the world.

Both claim or at least are seen as dishing out "the truth" but both are being intellectually dishonest. I don't hate either, but I believe that any claims -regardless of the source- that are PORTRAYED as "the truth" should be scrutinized and taken very seriously.

It would be fine - in either case- if everything were portrayed as only entertainment. But it's not.

Truth, in any form is such a rare thing in this world that it should be taken very seriously, and held in a very special place in our hearts and minds.

And you don't seem to get that.

1/19/2014 04:05:07 pm

These are obviously just my own personal opinions, and not those of Jason Colavito or other users...since apparently (judging from the content of this blog post) that needs clarifying to some people.

Phil, I don't want this to be seen as a personal attack (passion can so easily look like anger when you see it in black and white), but it's hard to see someone with "Rev." before their name treat truth with such a cavalier attitude.

I write my comment in the sincere hope that you will realize that others see you as an example of many things, and that you would make a better effort to show that truth and honesty (in reference Scott Wolter's intellectual claims...I make no statements about the man's character) are held in a position of high honor and esteem by spiritual leaders- or (from a secular standpoint) from community leaders.

It's just too important to dismiss, even for a friend.

On a personal note, props for defending your friend's personal character against the few commenters here who have attacked him personally. I respect that.

1/19/2014 04:29:42 pm

The "truth" that I post here is indeed ENTIRELY about (1) Scott Wolter's character and honesty … AND (2) the fact that the "AU" TV shows are just that -- TV shows produced for commercial purposes ...

1/19/2014 05:40:54 pm

Rev. Phil Gotsch.
1)"Scott Wolter's character and honesty".
2)"the fact that the "AU" TV shows are just that -- TV shows produced for commercial purposes ..."

You never heard of something called a "conflict of interest"?. "Scott Wolter puts his "character and honesty" at the door of his church,when he agrees to take part in "TV shows produced for commercial purposes".People will do anything for money & notoriety,you should know that,Dear Rev.

I couldn't care less about Wolter being successful at making a monkey out of himself on a TV program.Good for him if he doesn't have any self esteem & personal dignity.Oddly enough, as a man of god,you don't seem particularly preoccupied with concepts such as morality,conscience,& the ability to distinguishing right from wrong.

Seeker

1/20/2014 04:48:19 pm

Brent, well done and thank you. I'm fairly new to this blog, and your comments hit exactly on what has bothered me about posts from the Reverend. I appreciate that he is trying to support a friend, but I've never understood why he thinks it's OK to ignore truth if it's just "entertainment."

I was hoping he would specifically respond to the points of your post, but I've noticed when people make really good, solid points (such as the earlier one on 1/20/14 by The Other J. regarding wanting things both ways) he doesn't respond to them--he just backs off and says to "relax" or that he isn't here for debate. Just wanted you to know that others are as perplexed and disturbed by this as you are.

1/19/2014 05:28:40 pm

Its pretty ironic that a "reverend" is seen as someone who is a pillar of intellectual dishonesty when the entire point of his job is to brainwash people to believe in an invisible friend while dropping off their contributions. Organized religion is the greatest con in the history of mankind. Wolter's silly show is small beans compared to the massive fraud perpetrated on mankind by the likes of the "reverend".

1/19/2014 06:27:11 pm

Dan, if you have legitimate criticism of Rev. Phil's words or actions, leave it at that. Personally attacking the man's faith and calling into question his character because he represents it, via his position, is pretty damn low.

You choose not to associate with religion; that's not a problem, it's your choice. We can disagree all day on a subject and whether you practice a certain religion or not is irrelevant. However, making it personal by attacking someone's beliefs DOES call into question the depth of YOUR character.

Let's not roll around in the sewer just to win an argument, okay?

1/19/2014 06:54:03 pm

I see. He can be hailed as a "pillar" based only on his position, but can't be criticized if that position is actually a front for an organized con?
In reality the substantive aspects of the "reverend's" contribution to this forum are simple. He knows Wolter, and since he's a "reverend" that means his friend Wolter must be a good guy. Its only a tv show afterall, and its only for entertainment, so Wolter can say anything he wants.

I gave up on organized religion about the time that it truly jumped the shark -- at that point where the Catholic Church surpassed NAMBLA as the primary organization of pedophiles.

Sticking a "Rev" in front of your name in a forum is a cynical and lazy way to grant yourself instant credibility and status to those people who still drink the kool-aid of organized religion. For the rest of us, it means nothing -- well except that you're capable of the manipulative move of sticking a "Rev" in front of your name.

1/19/2014 07:28:39 pm

I'm not saying he can't be criticized. Titles in front of names do not free one from criticism. I'm just saying to address the man himself, something you just did in your last post.

You pointed out his habit of defending Wolter, no matter what, and his oft-repeated excuse that AU is entertainment, not to be taken seriously. That is what I'm talking about. You criticized his actions/words/behavior...and the matter of his faith didn't apply.

Just because his is a reverend, doesn't mean his credibility or status is greater than yours--speaking for myself, of course. Regardless of his title, if he comes here regularly spouting complete nonsense, then he is as open to being called on it as any other. If he exhibits behavior contrary to his position, but still expects the respect that usually accompanies it, then he should be called on it.

Making things personal will only fan the flames of the self-declared flame war some here have chosen to pursue.

1/20/2014 12:20:11 am

+1 to Only Me

This is not the place to insult the very idea of religion. There are places for that...lots of them. No good can come from this kind of talk here, man.

1/20/2014 12:34:28 am

Actually, Only Me, it's fortunate that you brought this up. The appeal to authority is one party of the problem I have with both Wolter and his snake oil and Phil's defense of it. I should say now that I believe more in organized religion than in its focus; the Church is why we can read after the fall of Rome. That he is a Reverend I will not at all criticize. That he is a Reverend who associates with a man who makes his living either selling his own easily detected lies, or selling lies for others, and instead of trying to improve the situation tells us that it is our fault for not liking his friend - THAT bothers me. Similarly good men and women have made not just professions but vocations of geology and labored quite literally in the dark. Wolter is willing to associate his name with the profession and therefore the profession with his work, selling easily detected frauds and ignoring where the evidence really goes, and I find that offensive.

1/21/2014 08:25:04 am

Dan, you're making the same classic mistake Jason often makes, and that is decrying the notion of creationism and/or God. You dare to come here and insult a significant number of people visiting, including myself.

True, it may be a presumption to believe in God, but it is also a presumption to believe there is no God. The views of everyone have to be respected. You have not done that here, even though my American money still says "In God We Trust."

Now that the subject has been broached, I may as well point out that the father of this blog, also, is guilty of taking this same irreverent approach here, oftentimes, but primarily because he is by nature a skeptic, I guess...that tendency to be sarcastic, to mock or jeer or otherwise make fun of the very idea of creationism, and by extrapolation, the very idea that there could be a God.

To me, personally, this is reprehensible, and now someone is trying to hold someone else to a higher standard he himself doesn't even believe in. Right, this is no place to attack Christians.

From my own point of view, if a "sinner" (Wolter) has Christian friends, there is all-round goodwill and reason for hope built into the relationship. Does Wolter need spiritual help? In my opinion, yes, and it looks like there is a friend to help him...not by calling him a liar or by brow-beating him, but by encouraging him in the right direction by degrees.

In this case, I would expect a more honest or at least complete approach to history eventually, yes, and more spiritual turpitude, too--the same thing I would expect of Jason, should he one day allow himself to "see The Light."

I agree with Only Me, Dan: Leave the Rev. alone. I'm guessing he does much more good in life than harm. The same message goes to Jason--about God and His creation, of which Jason is a part: Leave God alone, and be careful not to overtly insult those who might want to believe in His existence.

I am compelled to remind you, specifically, Dan, that "the fool says in his heart, there is no God." And remember, you brought the subject up.

1/20/2014 10:41:22 am

You're projecting your own feelings if you think each is portrayed as "the truth". They're both just trying to make a buck on commercial television. If they were trying to trying to tell the truth, they would produce documentaries at their own expense to air on non-commercial television. If a disclaimer is needed to air a show on commercial television, then every show in existence needs one, even if it happens to be truthful, because that just can't be counted on. It's commercial entertainment where money determines success not non-commercial television where quality is revered.

1/21/2014 12:12:05 am

I guess I was misled by statements like "We're going to find out the truth," or "going to expose the truth about X" etc. etc. Wolter really has used the word quite a bit, often in some sort of loud declaration.

1/21/2014 05:20:41 pm

Yeah, that's true, and he believes it, I think. I'm sure Joel Osteen believes what he's selling as well. But, I don't think the networks airing the shows are required to believe the content. They care about making sure the show doesn't say anything that will lose sponsors or viewers.

1/19/2014 04:24:58 pm

I listened carefully to Scott Wolter on the Energy Radio Show with Rita Louise.I realized the man is even more irrational & inconsistent on his own.On the American Unearthed program,he is obviously reading a script.Someone is directed him,telling him what to say & how to say it.Alone,Scott Wolter is a total disaster,there is no one to control his egocentrism & gooffines.Wolter makes extravagant claims after extravagant claims,you have to wonder how he made it so far,as a certified "geologist".In a foreseeable future, we can expect Wolter to deal with issues related to chupacabras, extraterrestrial biological entities,living pterodactyl,& secret tunnels beneath the McMartin preschool.
The man has completely lost it,this sad,very sad.

1/20/2014 01:50:02 am

When one's primary thesis is that academia is lying, and one's mission statement is to uncover all the things academia is lying about, there's really no depth to which one cannot plunge. One may eventually run out of air going too deep, though.

1/20/2014 02:48:18 am

Over Educated Grunt:

As I have posted relentlessly … The America Unearthed TV shows are commercial productions … and they have a positive value in stimulating interest in and discussion of North American history and pre-history …

That some folks can't seem to resist descending into name calling and personal attacks is just sad ..

Matt Mc

1/20/2014 02:58:17 am

Rev. I think Jason is doing a good job at telling the part of the story the Scott chooses not to. I really enjoy the background parts of his reviews.

If however the background part of the review can cause a reader to have negative thoughts about Wolter and his show. That falls upon the Wolter and the shows researchers.

And Rev. again

Its just a blog....... get over it..... relax ...

take a deep breath..

1/20/2014 03:36:30 am

Yes … Exactly my suggestion to ALL …

It's just a [ ……………… ] … So … Relax … Take a couple deep Breaths …

1/20/2014 04:51:21 am

That almost literally happened last episode.

1/20/2014 04:02:28 pm

It was an irresistible metaphor, I must admit.

M Donovan

1/20/2014 04:27:34 am

Like others have commented, I do not watch the show as I do not want to help the ratings in any way. I read this blog for the reviews and would rather Jason profit from my viewing (which he does not, apparently) than Wolter. Also, I get so angry at H2 (and its affiliates and its TV brethren) when I see Scotty on TV.

1/20/2014 04:34:12 am

LOL … You apparently do have other options, of course …

Assuming that you have "cable" (since you get the H2 channel), you COULD watch "Duck Dynasty" on A&E … or "The Real Housewives of Wherever" … or CNN … or PBS … or "Hallmark" … or the Golf Channel … or ... "what ever floats YOUR boat" ...

1/20/2014 05:25:38 am

Hang in there, Rev. Scott can use a few Christian friends who will pray for him and his family, and hope for good things to come his way.

Some of his ruthless and Godless adversaries here may end up grinding their teeth down to bloody stubs if he becomes too successful. They'll look funny without teeth!

1/20/2014 03:52:16 pm

See Gunn, this is when you go a little too far. You're wishing harm and disfigurement on people who disagree with you, and doing so for your own amusement. That's a far cry from disagreeing with an argument. There's a difference.

Not cool.

terry the censor

1/20/2014 04:30:34 pm

I've been away for a while but I see Rev. Phil is still pushing his disingenuous call for civility for a man, Scott Wolter, who himself seems incapable of respecting facts or persons.

May Gunn pray for your confused soul!

1/20/2014 04:32:49 pm

Terry --

Your resort to personal insults and snarky remarks only makes YOU look bad … Your choice ...

1/20/2014 04:47:46 pm

Rev. Phil, I was not insulting you, I was describing you.

Facts are facts.

1/20/2014 04:50:23 pm

Terry ...

1/21/2014 08:52:39 am

The Other J. says: "See Gunn, this is when you go a little too far. You're wishing harm and disfigurement on people who disagree with you."

And then I respond: "See The Other J., this is when you go a little too far. You're making believe I wish harm and disfigurement on people when, in fact, it was a metaphor. What part of metaphor don't you understand? The visual is a figure of speech, to create a quick picture, not a wish for chipped teeth and dripping blood. Perhaps you watch too many vampire movies.

1/21/2014 10:34:09 am

Really Gunn, I'm not the person with whom you want to argue the definition of metaphor -- that's what I did my graduate work in. There aren't two things being juxtaposed to create a third interpretive space in your statement, only an image that conveys how amused you'd be to see people who disagree with you grinding their teeth down to bloody stumps. Creating an image is just that; it's not a metaphor. A metaphor is when two unlike images (or words, or statements -- some kind of rhetoric, visual or otherwise) are juxtaposed in a way that creates a conflict of interpretation resulting in a third meaning that differs from the direct rhetorical interpretations of each individual image (or word, or statement). Examples: The Legion of Boom were a Hoover Dam against the flow of San Francisco's offense; The Other J's brow furrowed into canyons and chasms having to explain metaphor, and he pleaded to the cold unlistening universe that he wouldn't have to re-explain the snarl of metaphors in these examples.

Check out Thomas McLaughlin's chapter "Figurative Language" in Frank Lentricchia's Critical Terms for Literary Study, or better yet, Roman Jakobson's essay "Metaphor and Metonymy."

1/20/2014 04:45:38 pm

Jason, keep up the good work. Don't be too exercised by the dishonest debaters who come here. They project their own state of obsession onto you -- they are obsessed with the stubbornness of facts. It makes them crazy that scientific processes do not confirm their world view. And since they can't argue the facts, they feel safer attacking you, imputing obsession and lack of civility. For them, criticism of their buddies and their pet topics is never ever earned -- to them, fact-based criticism is always just a conspiracy.

1/21/2014 02:00:45 am

Terry …

So … Stick to the FACTS, then ...

1/21/2014 06:58:34 am

Rev. Phil, practise what you preach: respect FACTS. You stalk this blog chastising people for pointing out lies, implying that fact-checking is mere character assassination of the liar.

To call you a hypocrite is a description supported by dictionaries, it is not smeary rhetoric.

Own it.

1/21/2014 03:56:15 pm

Terry --

Lighten up … This is a BLOG … about a TV SHOW ...

Tom

1/20/2014 08:26:44 pm

Has anyone tried to comment on Scott Wolter's blog yet?

1/20/2014 08:27:23 pm

Sorry, it should be - successfully commented on his blog...

1/21/2014 12:24:48 am

I have. Essentially, I asked why he criticizes academics for not saying "i dont know" without adding "its probably X" when he himself very rarely says "i dont know" without adding "but im pretty sure its Y." This was on his blog post about Vikings in America.

Mister Wolter was kind enough to respond, though most of his answer was regarding the Heavener Stone (only one of the stones he was referring to in the show) and KRS. I would have preferred he address the underlying inconsistency/ apparent double standard of expectations from academics and himself, but at least he took the time to address the question instead of deleting it.

RLewis

1/21/2014 01:29:32 am

I have also commented on (and received responses) a couple of the episode blogs. He was courteous but essentially (IMHO) provided no additional insight into the questions I submitted. I doubt that I will go back. He doesn't really add more information (i.e. add links to more research, recommended reading. provide additional facts) I see his blog as basically an extension of the show (cross-channel marketing).

1/21/2014 08:57:14 am

i did make a rather rambling comment to SW in one of
the threads on his blog but mainly have lurked there...

Bill

1/22/2014 02:09:06 pm

No offense Jason, but reading through your site here, your obsession with mocking Wolter and his show in your Unearthed reviews IS truly "hate blogging". It's fairly easy to review and critique shows, books, etc., it's tough to be creative with original thought and insight.

1/22/2014 03:40:06 pm

Yes … Critiques and argument and discussion are ALWAYS welcome … but snotty snarky condescending ad hominem stuff is … just nastiness …

What's the bloody point of it except self-glorification and the self-satisfaction that comes with bullying … ???

1/22/2014 07:09:00 pm

Actually, the show has been critiqued fairly and discussed. If you've bothered to read the reviews, Jason has given more time and research into the topics and ideas presented on the show than the show itself probably deserves. Where you perceive Jason attacking and mocking wolter in the reviews is in pointing out some of the absurdities (excavating the ark with a digger) and comic portrayals by the host of the show as a rugged adventurer who rails against the falsehoods perpetrated by academia.

For a show that rev claims is for entertainment, Jason has done a hell of a lot more research into exposing the topics at hand and generating fair discussion than wolter has himself. The show has generated interest, but the proponents of wolters ideas just cry hate blog and ad hominem attacks instead of engaging in any meaningful discussion of the topics presented on AU.

1/22/2014 07:09:07 pm

1/23/2014 02:08:13 am

No …

I have never described the H2 "America Unearthed" TV shows as mere "entertainment" … That is not my characterization ...

They ARE commercially produced … They ARE commercially sponsored, and so are designed to attract and hold the attention of the audience … They're NOT documentaries produced by PBS … or by the National Academy of Sciences ...

I ALSO continue to hold that the "America Unearthed" TV shows have positive value in stimulating interest in and discussion of North American history and pre-history …

AND I continue to insist that useful public civilized adult discussion ought to be about IDEAS and CLAIMS and FACTS -- rather than snarky ad hominem remarks about PERSONS …

Why these necessary clear simple distinctions apparently remain difficult for some to understand and accept … I dunno ...

1/23/2014 02:25:11 am

A show which claims that academia is lying to us, and misleads the viewer through obfuscating fact, should be treated with the same respect and civility accorded to 'real' documentaries produced by PBS or the academy of sciences right?

In any case, if the show isn't a documentary... then what the hell is it? Commerciastimulant?

1/23/2014 02:32:55 am

Gosh … Ummm … The vast, vast, vast majority of program offerings on TV are NOT "PBS" documentaries …

That's just the way it is … FAR and away, the vast bulk of program offerings on TV ARE commercially produced and commercially sponsored … A perceptive adult viewer should have no difficulty seeing and hearing the difference …

But again … for sure … ANY and ALL of the content of the "America Unearthed" TV shows OUGHT to be discussed, analyzed, hashed-over … Why not … ??? Who says otherwise … ???

1/23/2014 04:25:33 am

All right, Phil, I'll shake your bouncy booty. You want substantial criticism, here goes. The Great Lakes Copper Heist episode, at the very tall end of the episode, they attempt to prove a link between Minoan copper and Great Lakes copper. This is well established. It is well understood. It is not, in short, revolutionary science worthy of a PBS documentary. The way you establish that metal artifacts are from the same deposit, or for that matter two rocks, is by comparing the trace fractions in the object. It is not by comparing the copper fraction. What comparing the copper fractions will establish is that copper is in fact copper. Scott Wolter is not merely a geologist, but a petrographer, used to working with thin slices to do precisely this. Despite this, he blithely announces that copper is copper. This is bad science that he as a petrographer should understand. For him to say otherwise says either that he is professionally dishonest, or incompetent. Those are the only two possible explanations for him letting that slide. I don't care if he is professionally dishonest because his head was turned by the camera. I can understand it, but the cause doesn't change the effect.

1/23/2014 04:51:06 am

You misunderstood my tone R.P.G. If the show isn't a documentary, then what ... IS ... IT ... PHIL?

1/23/2014 06:22:02 am

Over educated grunt --

Okay … You start off WELL, reasonably discussing some claims … but then you can't seem to RESIST also slinging personal insults …

Your choice … But again, it doesn't make YOU look good to do so ...

1/23/2014 07:34:45 am

Phil, sweetheart, you dear simple man, it's not libel if it's true. Part of his job as a geologist is to know basic materials science. Part of his job as a Woo TV host is to ignore that. There is a conflict between those two points, and Scott Wolter choose the bright lights rather than the truth he already knew.

1/23/2014 10:32:36 am

@Rev Phil

> you can't seem to RESIST also slinging personal insults

For the n-hundreth time, Phil, you take a correct description of "dishonest" or "incompetent" and call these insults.

By your tactics, NO ONE can EVER be found to be dishonest or incompetent, thus rendering these words totally meaningless!

And that is a dishonest tactic, rev.

Repent!

1/23/2014 12:19:29 pm

There IS a difference -- a HUGE difference -- between discussing and critiquing the CONTENT of a TV show … and slinging personal insults at its host ...

1/23/2014 12:40:57 pm

Okay then, P-Diddy, explain to me how the copper purity debacle came out of his mouth without being either professionally dishonest or incompetent at geology, please. Those really are the only two choices. Either he sold his professional soul for a paycheck and let the show runners put words in his mouth, he put them there himself, or he was so ignorant of the basics of his profession and so arrogant that he could not be bothered to check that he is incompetent as a geologist. Do you not see the problem here? He routinely says things on TV that contradict not just established opinion (which is fine) but the basic standards and best practices of his supposed profession, while at the same time calling on said profession for his credibility (not fine). And yes, it is about Scott Wolter, BECAUSE THE WORDS ARE COMING OUT OF HIS MOUTH. He is practicing bad geology in a public forum, and you defend him for it!

1/23/2014 01:20:29 pm

Over Educated Grunt --

"P. Diddy" … ??? LOL … You still don't get it ...

1/24/2014 12:19:44 am

When the unhelpful personal insult slinging feedback loop stops, it will no longer be necessary to point it out as such …

It does appear that my patient reasonableness spoils a certain amount of fun in these blogs, but that is not my problem ...

1/24/2014 12:58:16 am

And once again... you've failed to say anything. Don't bother addressing anything in the contents - just focus on perceived slights and insults and play the hurt victim. Yawn!

Ver. Ghil Potsch

1/24/2014 01:01:29 am

The "America Unearthed" TV shows have positive value in stimulating interest in and discussion of North American history and pre-history …

AND I continue to insist that useful public civilized adult discussion ought to be about IDEAS and CLAIMS and FACTS -- rather than snarky ad hominem remarks about PERSONS …

What's the bloody point of it except self-glorification and the self-satisfaction that comes with bullying … ???

----

Oh look, there it is again! I can reply to these myself.

1/23/2014 01:37:21 pm

Neither apparently do you. You can't be bothered to spell or punctuate my chosen name properly, figured I would return the favor. Frankly I get tired of hearing you whine nonstop about how cruel everyone is to your friend Scott. You are here to defend his good name and character. Well, Rev Run, he needs all the defense he can get, because he pulled his goalie in the first period. I have routinely pointed out the bad geology, and the steps he could have taken to avoid it. In return I get "it's not NOVA," as if not being the best is an excuse for sloppy work. Apparently calling his work on screen sloppy, unprofessional, and professionally dishonest is ad hominem. All I am doing is going where the evidence that your friend provides leads. If that is a personal attack, fine.

But I can assure you, as someone with the potential for needing a geologic consultant, I would never hire Scott Wolter, because of his public unprofessional behavior, whether staged or off the cuff (see Roanoke and his shoddy treatment of the first person to apart on the show and tell him he is wrong), his flagrant disregard for best practices (copper, Mayan Blue declaration without checking with a single mineralogist), and his unwillingness to let any sort of quality control near his work (no pet review on archaeopetrography).

1/23/2014 02:34:13 pm

Over Educated Grunt (whoever you are):

Again … Patiently … Yes, yes, yes … LOL …

For whatever reasons of your own you feel a need to sling personal insults AS IF that constitutes adult conversation … What ever …

Scott Wolter is the HOST of the H2 "America Unearthed" TV shows … They are commercially produced for commercial proposes …

I find that they DO have a positive value in stimulating interest in and discussion of North American history and pre-history … (Unfortunately they also seem to attract and "rile up" persons who simply love to BASH others … but that is their problem not mine, nor that of Scott Wolter … Get over it … or not …)

Bat. C. Stoner

1/23/2014 07:06:50 pm

RPG has only stock phrases and is incapable of responding to criticism in a civilized way without resorting to crying victim. As someone mentioned earlier, a continual feedback loop has been turned into an argument. reminds me of religion...

1/24/2014 02:17:44 am

You seem to think I have some sort of animus against Scott Wolter. I do not. I want to see him succeed, in a manner that does not make him look like he hates his chosen profession. There area wide variety of historical topics a geologist would be hugely interesting on - off the top of my head, how the chalky limestone of the plains favored long-rooted grasses rather than corn, rye, or wheat, how the easily erodible limestone of Omaha Beach defined the battlefield, how Seattle exists because it sits along a path of least resistance for water between the Olympics and Cascades, how the Mississippi was tamed at New Orleans by Eads...

There's even room for controversial topics here, like how Jacksonian policy denied the possibility of a native mound culture. Or a serious look at why Vinland might be Massachusetts. However, that is not what we got.

And you, O Spinning Horselover, for all that you call for substantive debate, the most substantive thing I have seen you say is how long the Rolling Stones have survived. If you want substantive debate, give substantive debate.

Mark

1/23/2014 05:20:40 am

On the H2 website there is a statement about a "new science". Could someone educate me about this claim of a "new science" that Mr. Wolter's (via his company) claims to have developed? Where has he published his methodology? Is there a list of names of scientists who verify this "new science"?

1/23/2014 05:25:14 am

The new science is called "archaepetrography," and it is apparently unique to Wolter. (There is another person who uses the same word but for a slightly different purpose.) Wolter claims that it is the use of petrography to date archaeological material through microscopic examination of stone objects. The only descriptions of his methods are in his own books, and these methods have never been published in a peer-reviewed journal. I am not aware of any archaeologists or geologists who endorse this as a scientific discipline.

1/23/2014 05:31:15 am

Thanks for the quick response.
I'm really enjoying your reviews.

1/23/2014 02:37:15 pm

I'm very interested in the potential for any new advances in studying carvings in rocks, both stonehole carvings and image carvings. So much in this immediate MN/SD area depends on scientific enquiry in "carving aging," which archaepetrography could be considered as doing, I suppose.

There are several techniques available to examine aging, and I'm quite sure Wolter knows about them all. I have my own ideas for age testing large stoneholes, and possibly even the KRS itself, which would involve finding the chips (below accumulated soil) from the carvings and then finding suitable carbon-dating sampling material from within the carving chips themselves. A good candidate might be the "Viking Altar Rock," which I have taken many pictures of and posted to my little website.

http://www.hallmarkemporium.com/discoveries/id4.html

In this case, two very large holes were made laterally or horizontally, quite rare for stoneholes in MN or SD. There is a sloped face below the holes, which may have caused an abundance of white chips to accumulate on the ground in that spot. I'm saying that finding anything once living within the accumulation of rock chips and dust powder could give an approximate date; the same goes with the KRS, if the location of carving could be located, my guess is not far away: 202 lbs.

1/24/2014 02:04:41 am

The problem with your proposed technique, Gunn, is that the rocks themselves are not carbon-dateable, so you would only get the dates of any organic inclusions, which at the sites you describe are thoroughly mixed. With an intact, pristine site, there are, as you say, a wide variety of dating techniques, but site disturbance makes all of them useless. Your first task to prove that there was a New Gotland is to find such a site. Until that happens, it must remain in the realm of speculation. The good news is that the tools are all there, and at their most basic level (document review, site walks, sieving) are easily accessible to amateurs (including me, before you write me off as another academic, since I am not a historian or archeologist). The bad news is that they are incredibly boring and results worth mentioning take months to years to bear fruit.

1/24/2014 05:53:09 am

I agree that site disturbance would make a site useless for this purpose. What I'm proposing is an undisturbed site. Archaeologists would be able to tell, while processing a site, whether or not the soil was disturbed, making it either useful or un-useful to continue. Anything once living found within the layer of chips/powder may possibly be carbon-dated, giving the approximate date of the carving.

Admittedly, An over-Educated Grunt, a suitable site is difficult to locate. However, I think the site I mentioned is a perfect candidate. Maybe Wolter will look more closely at stoneholes again some day, since he pegs them with Templars. It looks like a sure circle to come back to, to me, this "archaepetrography."

1/26/2014 04:41:02 pm

Here's some fan mail Wolter supposedly received, posted on his blog

"Hi Scott,

I'm a big fan of America Unearthed. I realized something curious when I googled your name. A guy named Colovito comes up. He goes on to bash you and I saw you posted there too. I applaud you for sticking up for yourself. […] You have made enemies and that is a good thing. The questions you ask are enlightening. You must be doing something right because archaeologists are slinging mud at you. They don't even think you should be doing the things you are doing and want you to stick to geology. Geology has a place in archaeology. Please keep doing the things that you are doing. The show is great. I hope you discredit all of the pompous academics who are bashing you.

Regards,

Nikin"

Now who thinks 'Nikin' really exists?

1/26/2014 05:45:46 pm

"You have made enemies and that is a good thing."

"You must be doing something right because archaeologists are slinging mud at you."

I love this argument. That's like saying the Ku Klux Klan and the New Black Panthers are champions of civil rights because they've made enemies and most of society considers them hate groups.

Is there no logical fallacy the fringe element hasn't adopted?

JustAnObservation

1/27/2014 02:42:04 pm

Jason,
I have read a few of your posts and you do seem to have a fascination with Scott Wolter. I do not believe in everything these so called conspiracy theorist say, but who are you to question his research. It would seem from what you have written that most of your attacks against Scott are based on book or Internet searches instead of actual field work. I understand basing facts off someone else is what most people do, but if you are going to attack someone's credibility do actual field research instead of basing your evidence from things you read from other people. Who is to say they are right either? After all isn't that why so many people believed Christopher Columbus discovered America.

1/27/2014 10:29:39 pm

If you've read only a few of my posts, you haven't read the literally hundreds of other topics I discuss regularly. If I write about America Unearthed often it is because it's the highest rated show in my area of interest.

I can and do question Scott Wolter because he is wrong, and anyone can do that. I have a degree in archaeology, and you need to realize that the "field research" you see Wolter doing isn't archaeology, or even much geology. For the most part, he's visiting sites for show. He isn't digging for artifacts, and when he does he finds nothing. Don't confuse visiting a site with special knowledge of it.

Wolter's claims are mostly based on "book or internet searches," too, and then he dresses them up by standing next to a site and taking pictures of it. His "theories" stem from bad books written by writers who don't know very much. When his claims do come from actual field research, I check with other experts who have examined these artifacts and sites for the opinions of professionals with vastly more field experienced than Scott Wolter. And they have yet to confirm any Wolter's extreme claims.

1/28/2014 02:39:51 am

I'm not disagreeing with you on the fact of if he gets his information the same way. I have read some of your other articles too it's just when I google your name there tends to be a high amount of articles tied to discrediting Scott Wolter. Besides that my whole point is who is to say that any of the people who make claims are so called experts. The so called experts are the same ones as I said before said that Columbus discovered America. Just because a group of credited people get together and believe the same thing doesn't always make then right. Most of the science used to prove these theories is still fairly young and the way I see it unless there 100% undeniable proof of these instances, expert or not its all just theories.

1/28/2014 02:44:53 am

I don't control which pieces readers read, and thus which articles Google ranks highest.

No one has argued that Columbus was the first European to reach America since Washington Irving in the early 1800s. That the Vikings reached North America in 1000 CE has been in the textbooks since the late 1800s. Columbus, though, inaugurated the first sustained, impactful contact.

Different ideas have different levels of evidence supporting them. Scott Wolter's ideas have little to no evidence supporting them while mainstream ideas generally have centuries of accumulated research supporting them. That's the difference.

1/28/2014 04:00:39 am

The Wolter supporters love to point out Columbus not being first to America. But they miss the point with this. If anything it shows how mainstream science is willing to change its ideas on the basis of new evidence. The fact is that we don't have recalcitrant historians pounding away that Columbus was here first, we have solid, reliable evidence to the contrary so the theories evolved with that evidence.

Sadly the evidence that Wolter has for his theories is either non-existent or non-credible. That is why the 'mainstream' will not look at them.

kevin

2/2/2014 12:01:29 pm

To say there are heated views here is a slight understatement. Unless any of the topics affects you directly then change the channel. I would you assume everyone here realizes TV producers are going to inflate these topics like a balloon to get people to watch. Consequently, Jason devises a website for dicussing these topics. I'm sure his website doesn't hurt for advertising his journalistic endeavors either. I certainly never heard of him before the website. To his credit that was very crafty.
I've always been a fan of skeptics because they keep everyone honest. However, I haven't seen skeptics offer alternate solutions because the answer mainstream science offers is absurd. For example, I personally visited Puma Punku and can assure you primitive people did not carve those stones with copper chisels, or bones. No one here, myself included can dismiss any theory regardless of how far fetched it may be unless an irrefutable solution lies in your possession.