Scott Wolter Joins Blogosphere, Requests Fans Comment with "Factual" Evidence and No "Negativity"

12/19/2013

America Unearthed host Scott Wolter has started a blog to help correct the record about his investigations and beliefs. Called Scott Wolter Answers, the blog aims to provide a forum where fans of America Unearthed can interact in a way that uses “my own name to help get Google hits.” The blog is linked to his Google+ account and was promoted by Steve St. Clair, so it appears to be legitimate. According to Wolter, “There are certainly enough other bloggers out there hoping to sway opinion about me, my work and the show. It’s time Scott Wolter represented himself.” (He writes in a mixture of first and third person.)

I did a Google search to check this assertion, and apparently those other bloggers are me and … a few random sentences here and there. So, I guess it’s just me.

I call your attention to this blog because I strive, as always, to offer as complete a picture of the stories I discuss as I possibly can. Wolter invites “fans” to comment on the show and his work, and he asks that anyone who does post a comment or a question refrain from “negativity” and personal attacks. Wolter says that he will not publish any negative comments. He also requests that any questions that challenge him should include “evidence or factual support.” As of this writing in the early afternoon of December 19, Wolter’s blog has received one comment after nineteen days of operation. I am linking to it to help publicize his side of the story.

However, Wolter apparently is not interested in the views of non-fans: “You are certainly welcome to not like the show or Scott Wolter, that is certainly your right,” Wolter writes. “Just do us all a favor and tell someone else who might want to hear your opinion.”

I ask that any readers who visit Wolter’s blog after reading this please honor his request and ask only factual, specific questions about his historical claims. No personal attacks, please. Examples might be something like:

The Book of Tea-Tephi, which S02E01 references by name, and whose claims the episode explores, carries a copyright date of 1897, and its author acknowledges that it is a work of fiction. Were you aware that the book is not a medieval text?
The British county records office that S01E02 said provided confirmation of the existence of Peter “Rough” Hurech denies providing any such information to you or to Alan Butler and states that their records have no such name. What medieval documents do you have showing this man existed? Why have you not made these public?
You frequently claim that Henry I Sinclair, Earl of Orkney sailed to America in the late 1300s. The only historical text allegedly supporting this is the Zeno Narrative of 1558. Why do you believe Prince Zichmni of the Zeno text was Henry I Sinclair? Since the text does not mention America but rather Greenland, why do you believe its description of Greenland is “really” Nova Scotia?
Adolf Hitler is seen in a famous painting making the “Mary Magdalene” secret hand signal. Do you believe that the Nazis are part of the Freemasonic cult of democracy and freedom you identify with the hand signal in your most recent book?

And because I am a nice guy, I’ll even put in a plug for the Duluth Trading Company, the manufacturer of Scott Wolter’s Bulldozer Backpack. They have just published Scott Wolter’s celebrity endorsement of their product:

“My Duluth Trading Company Bulldozer Backpack has truly become one of my favorite travel accessories. It has been extremely durable over the course of two seasons of both filming and globetrotting,” says Wolter. “I’ve had many backpacks in the past and the others would be in tatters by now. It’s really comfortable to wear – I’ve had up to 50 pounds of books, my computer, my rock hammer, rock samples, etc. and it hangs in there just great. The zippers are still perfect and there are no tears or seams starting to come apart. I love my Bulldozer Backpack and can’t wait to bring it along on more adventures.”

Granted, it’s not quite up there with Destination Truth host Josh Gates’ endorsement of hamburger-shaped earmuffs, but I’m willing to believe that Duluth makes a sturdy backpack. Plus, Wolter offered less product placement that Gates’ similar backpack expose. That said, while I’ve also criticized Gates for some overly-credulous investigations, he is among the illustrious few TV fringe show figures who is self-deprecating, a pleasure to watch, and has not tried to sue me for criticizing him (I’m looking at you Scott Wolter, Jason Martell, Alan Bulter, etc.). Naturally, Syfy has no plans to make more Destination Truth but instead has a new show where ghost hunters try to communicate with the ghosts of famous murderers of history.

96 Comments

Gunn link

12/19/2013 07:39:16 am

I see you're keeping your sense of humor. The backpack reference made me laugh until my side hurt, but that might be from drinking too much coffee and not eating enough, too. Like E. Hemingway said, "ya gotta eat something." Was that him?

A good backpack is essential in Scott's line of work, so I'm glad to see him plugging for some extra Duluth business.

(I heard that Duluth was the end of the road, as far as west-sailing, medieval boating went.)

DAN D

12/19/2013 08:02:03 am

Yes, the Blog Wars! Finally a place for those who take umbrage at Jason's writings, can now go lob fluff balls at our modern day Indiana Jones.

I heard from a TV industry source that the now famous backpack is stuffed with Oreo's.

Lighten up folks! lol

Gunn

12/19/2013 09:29:12 am

Forget the backpack, as I've already got three. What I want to know is whether it's close enough to spring to inquire about the possibility of acquiring a pair of Duluth Trading Company "Bulldozer Shorts"? Even at 61, my legs appear to be trim and muscular...at least from a distance...if you wear thick glasses. Anyway, I think the shorts are as essential as the backpack. (Worth looking into.) Shucks, it's past my nap time.

Only Me

12/19/2013 10:21:56 am

You don't have to worry about how your legs look in shorts, until someone tells you your waist strings are hanging out. :)

Rev. Phil Gotsch

12/19/2013 01:08:10 pm

LOL …

I have learned from real-life experience that taking any dose of "umbrage" has unpleasant side effects …

So I take regular (daily) lashings of strong black coffee and dry red wine, and prn doses of dark chocolate and aspirin (for a slight problem with some minor arthritis in my hands) …

;-)

Cathleen Anderson

12/19/2013 10:26:03 am

He is looking more and more like Giskard, who successfully made himself a pariah to several huge modding communities.

Clint Knapp

12/20/2013 02:56:37 am

I wasn't aware of Giskard until I looked him up after your comment. He sounds an awful lot like another digital pariah of days gone by.

Herbert Elwood Gilliland III was a MUD coder who went by the name Locke. He did some good work, notably an interface for world building called OLC. Then he went off the deep end and began making all sorts of demands, including changing the credits sheet for OLC several years after its release and insisting everyone update to include his new claim to 100% ownership of any code written for or around OLC.

Gilliland would also turn up as the infamous "Fourth Youtuber", claiming the popular video site and just about every facet surrounding its design was his idea (he even takes credit for the thumbs-up/thumbs-down buttons).

J.A. Dickey

12/19/2013 10:53:37 am

I clicked on the link and looked at the comments on SW's blog.
A month ago i'd have thought he was sorta envious of all the dudes
who made DUCK DYNASTY what it is today, but then we have
those glib interview comments that might have an impact like that
court case did for Paula Dean. Jason, i do think it's going to slowly
dawn on him that having an arch critic is not the worst situation
to be inside concerning reality TV!!! Lets face it, students who took
that ANIMAL PLANET special seriously about mermaids who did
link to it in a term paper like as if its a NOVA episode methinks
soon learned where science ends & fantasy begins. I do think SW
thinks he's more highbrow & erudite than BoBo of Finding Bigfoot.

12/19/2013 05:17:26 pm

Now that's just unfair...to Bobo.

He KNOWS if an area is "Squatchy"; it has a "vibe".

He KNOWS what a Sasquatch will eat...because if he likes it, then Sasquatch will love it.

When you see a Sasquatch, he will welcome you to the club.

He is an expert, you know. :)

The Other J.

12/20/2013 11:49:25 am

Squatchin' is a science, not like paleoarchaeoastrogastronomy.

Matt Mc

12/19/2013 11:06:43 am

So he goes around with a copy of his own book in his backpack, I guess it is for reference?
Or does he just read it over and over because it is that great?

12/19/2013 01:55:55 pm

From my own experience, a backpack is an excellent way to carry books.

I wonder how many times people have asked Wolter if he had available an immediate copy of his book/w autograph? For which reason, I would make room for even more copies...if I were interested in making available books I wrote and believe in.

But don't take this as a "blanket endorsement" of his books; I pretty much concentrate only on what he had to say about the KRS, not much else. (I know, my world is shrinking.)

I think he makes a better presence as a TV show host than as an author. Maybe that's where his best income will end up coming from...probably not a bad outcome.

I guess I wish him more success as a TV show host than as an author, based on the two bodies of work so far. He did a great job of showcasing local medieval "evidences" connected to the KRS in his X book, and I think better days are ahead for him as his TV career may end up supplanting his oftentimes wayward writing. One only has so much time to make money, and the iron has to be struck while hot...just in the right spot.

charlie

12/19/2013 12:21:13 pm

So, the very best ever friend of Jason has his own blog now?
I see he wants to get giggle hits. Why does he want loads of giggle hits? I'd guess, being the nasty sort I am, that if he gets loads of giggle hits, he can lure some advertisers to blog/web site. Bunches of giggle hits + ads = $$$ for old Scotty.
I'll let him gather his giggle hits without my participation thanks any who.
As old Bugs Bunny used to say; ain't I a stinker?
Sorry Scott, can't take your TV show, don't care about your blog.
Thanks for the heads up Jason.

CFC

12/19/2013 12:22:32 pm

I'm sure Duluth Trading hasn't heard that Wolter is the guy who has claimed to have a fake degree from the University up on the hill- the U of MN Duluth that is. They might think twice about this type of promotion.

12/19/2013 02:24:19 pm

Why would Wolter claim to have a fake degree? But I know what you are saying.

If they also heard Wolter's prolonged explanation (available here), they might easily overlook the "transgression." I'm thinking that being sober-minded (?) people from Duluth--Duluthians, Duluthites (I may have just made some new enemies to the north), these cold-braving souls would easily forgive Wolter for any playful embellishment of his credentials.

A lot of people are guilty of playing the "smart" game--and it does seem to be a game, especially here. This is one place where the smart (and the smug) gather to exchange imagined importance based sometimes only on semi-intelligent comments, like accidently (I guess) saying that Wolter claims to have a fake degree. But we understand...you were just trying to throw the man under the bus...again. If Wolter looks kind of flat from the side next time we see him on TV, we'll blame you.

Jack

12/19/2013 11:27:02 pm

Calling himself a "forensic geologist" is a playful embellishment. Keeping an imaginary honorary degree on his professional resume for years on end is fraud.

12/20/2013 03:22:59 am

Honorary degrees often mean nothing anyway. Fraud implies intent. Charity of heart compels a bit of humorous leeway. If it was relatively easy to check on his credentials, I doubt that he would try to pull an outright fraud, knowing it could easily be exposed. That's why it must have been frivolous in his mind, and not an actual attempt to permanently get away with something. You automatically think the worst, and proclaim it, thereby judging the man. You cannot see into his head well enough to make such a judgment.

King Ronald the Wise

12/20/2013 03:23:02 am

Holding imaginary titles is not a criminal offence

LynnBrant

12/20/2013 03:54:14 am

Scott was always very sensitive about having only the undergrad degree. He very much wanted more letters behind his name. Whether this fake degree was to fool his audience, or whether it was an expression of some internal psychological issue, I don't know. I sort of put it in the same category as the backpack and Indiana Jones schtick. I once had a college roommate, who wore a black Clint Eastwood hat while looking at himself in the mirror with the theme from The Good, the Bad and the Ugly playing. I see Scott like that. So maybe it was just "playful," in a totally creepy kind of way.

12/20/2013 05:12:40 am

Gunn's got a crush on Scotty. How cute.

An Over-Educated Grunt

12/20/2013 10:01:44 am

In Wolter's defense, he is a licensed geologist, and forensic geology is a thing. The PG in most states requires a four-year degree in a geology - related field, for to six years of relevant work, endorsement by multiple practitioners in the field, and an all-day exam. Before he joined the Woo Brigade, evidence is that he was a competent professional, practicing forensic geology, which is mostly determining what went wrong in a failure of geomaterials, most commonly concrete. I don't believe he is a complete idiot, just that he speaks way outside his expertise and regularly fails to acknowledge contrary evidence that he must know about.

12/20/2013 11:48:31 am

D (small target).

Wolter believes in the Kensington Runestone. I believe in the Kensington Runestone. I don't mind defending either one of these MN oddities, when warranted.

Crush? What an jackass...didn't you read what I just said about homosexuality? How is your mind trending?

Big Mike

12/19/2013 09:26:31 pm

Dang it.... I have grown to take anything Wolter says with such a huge grain of salt that I can't make up my mind about those Duluth Trading Company Bulldozer backpacks.... I mean, I know from experience that Duluth makes a fine product... but if Wolter is endorsing it it could be completely without merit, factually wrong, and poorly researched, but for some reason strangely compelling... like the hypnotic wibbly wail of a theremin. No, wait, that's Wolter's show. I still don't think I'll get one of those book bags without some further research. I just don't trust Wolter's word.

Lynn Brant link

12/19/2013 10:44:27 pm

I read this as : "Come into my court where I preside as judge using my rules of evidence, and prove me wrong."

12/19/2013 11:54:16 pm

See, that's exactly it. Wolter is all about the "court of law" analogies. In fact, if I may quote Mr. Wolter: "All I can do is testify to factual information...[context] is irrelevant. Facts are the things that carry... no, they are irrelevant. In a court of law they are irrelevant. (America Unearthed, S01E07, 2012)"
Of course Wolter is in two ways wrong here, first (and least) is his backwards interpretation of court procedures wherein he claims that the burden of proof is on the defense. He makes claims and then says that those defending the old doctrine must provide evidence to refute his claims rather than what is actually done in court which is that the prosecution or plaintiff (in civil court) has the burden of proof. Whenever Wolter makes a claim he is the plaintiff or prosecutor. That would put the burden of proof on him. Until last weeks episode about the Rockwall rock wall, I had yet to see him provide ANY sufficiently plausible or compelling evidence for any of his claims.
A second (and more important) point is this... Academia, Science, and History ARE NOT TRIED IN A COURT OF LAW. Repeatable experimentation, proper research, and peer review are the tools of scholarly endeavors and claims made in these arenas must be backed by those tools else they are speculative flights of fancy that are akin the the whims of fairies.
The tools of repeatable experimentation ensures that results can be seen over and over again by anyone willing to reproduce the experiment.
The tools of proper research ensures that time is not wasted and that CONTEXT is maintained.
The tool of peer review ensures that mistakes are not made in the research and experimentation stages.
Conclusions drawn after those three tools are used have the weight of proper procedure and the scientific method to back them up.

12/20/2013 03:50:13 am

History is different from science. Some existing histories are factually wrong. How many times do we hear, or read, "we had it wrong" from the professionals. When circling around the word history, one should know that science must be repeatable, but sometimes history has to be changed.

Preponderance of evidence means something, too, in both a court of law, and in history. Of course, these evidences must be judged. Peer review, but also alternate viewpoints, are sometimes helpful. Now-a-days, practically anyone can be a researcher, and more and faster input is at hand. One must still look.

Science doesn't shift much, compared to our view of history--even though the two are sometimes combined in study. Knowledge of geological features of Earth, for instance, is added to by science, but our view of history is also thoroughly reshuffled and added to by new findings. Our picture of science is not complete, and neither is our picture of history. Both can and will be added to, and usually by "professionals," but not always. We can leave the door open a bit for alternative history speculation. It can be healthy to question what we think is obvious, both in science and in history.

Varika

12/20/2013 01:30:28 pm

...a third way he's wrong is that context DOES matter to a court of law. There's a huge, huge, HUGE difference, for instance, between murder and manslaughter, and it's all about the context. Specifically, the context of intent, usually. One person can stab another to death and not be charged with murder if one can prove that one had no intent to kill the other at the time of the stabbing--which is done, as Wolter as a "forensic geologist" SHOULD know, since you don't do anything in forensics if you can't/won't/don't testify in court, by looking at the surrounding events, ALSO known as "context."

Michael

12/20/2013 12:19:46 am

This man has a PhD...oh wait...

titus pullo

12/20/2013 12:26:31 am

I actually submitted a question to Mr. Wolter on the site yesterday but it doesn't look like it was accepted or went through. My question was about the "Great Copper Heist" episode. I asked some basic questions regarding the challenges of a minoian or punic culture mining in the Great Lakes (navigation tools for long sea voyages were not yet developed like the astrolab, the logistics of launching such a large expedition, how to get tons and tons of copper ore across the Great Lakes (there wasn't canals that linked the lakes back then), lack of evidence of precolumbian european evidence and so on. I mean you would need forward replishment depots along the way on the lakes and a port and warehouses for the ore on the east coast before the ships sailed the very dangerous North Atlantic.
The romantic idea of minoians or North Africans mining the Great Lakes 5,000 years ago is appealing but the technology, logistics, management, and economics just were not there...heck who were the investors?

I do hope Mr. Wolter responds..guess we will see.

12/21/2013 07:37:00 am

*breath held*

12/20/2013 12:38:50 am

Question to you all..why do you think people attach themselves with so much passion to ideas which if they applied a small amount of logic and critical thinking are clearly wrong?

I suppose there are all sorts of explanations but one which seems plausible is the need for humans to have certainty. We all want a nice tidy explanation of things as well as a future which is totally predictable. This to some degree is why we hold "leaders" in so much regard. I've worked at large corporations my entire career (in operations, finance, and marketing) and honestly, most of the upper folks have no idea why things have worked. It is often small groups of people under the radar who actually innovate and deliver revolutionary change..a very decentralized reality. Yet humans have a need to have someone "in charge"..so many CEOs just get lucky and then get a tag line of their own brilliance. Some are brillant..people like Steve Jobs..most are not. In the govt world, we hold up politicians as "leaders" whom we put our trust and faith that they can take care of us. Yet if you look at the great and not so great politicians you see much of it is just chance. Jimmy Carter is much maligned and yet he finally did the one thing that killed the inflation demon that Johnson and Nixon had let loose...and it cost him the election. The field of "economics" is ever worse. We delude ourselves that the "experts" can solve our problems. Keynsian economics fails the basic test of a scientific theory yet we look to these modern astrologers like Bernanke and Greenspan as "experts" and look to them to save the day.
It is an uncomfortable truth but the future is not predictable but we need the belief that our "managers" can somehow manage it for us...I guess to stay sane.

Perhaps there is some applicability to the need for people to believe in aliens and alternative histories..it makes it more easy to deal with life's uncertainty?

12/20/2013 12:46:16 am

TS Elliot nailed it, "Humankind cannot bear very much reality."

12/20/2013 04:59:09 am

But, even so, the two terms seem to be inexorably linked. Unsettled history can be alternative history, and vice versa. But, as well, I would like to know if there should be a defined difference between the two. The term "incomplete picture" comes to mind. It may be that some of these alternative histories are involved with incomplete pictures, which also could be considered as unsettled history.

12/20/2013 04:15:07 am

I don't think that's right. Some alternative histories come true. Not very many, but a few. You are saying that alternative histories are fantasies and they may be fulfilling life's uncertainty. Why would fantasies or alternative histories have anything to do with uncertainty...all the time?

This is a broad brush. I don't trust the "managers" of the current public take on certain things having to do with history. When a State Museum purposely hides probable genuine medieval artifacts from public view, it is hard to trust the managers of our history.

Logic and critical thinking can and does operate outside the "managers," but there is such a thing as professional smugness over being in control. It only takes one unethical museum manager to hide things away, based on "professional bias."

I grew up in the '60's...why should I trust the authorities...even with our history?

12/20/2013 04:38:57 am

Has Jason or anyone here offered a definition for "alternative history?" I take it to mean something different from unsettled history.

12/20/2013 05:05:57 am

(Sorry, posted in wrong spot, above.)

But, even so, the two terms seem to be inexorably linked. Unsettled history can be alternative history, and vice versa. But, as well, I would like to know if there should be a defined difference between the two. The term "incomplete picture" comes to mind. It may be that some of these alternative histories are involved with incomplete pictures, which also could be considered as unsettled history.

12/20/2013 05:48:01 am

I'm sure even a museum manager has someone signing his paychecks. If he was told not to display the artifacts, then doing so doesn't necessarily mean he's unethical.

On the other hand, if their so sure the artifacts are not genuine, I don't know why they couldn't be handed over to someone who runs a private museum. I'm sure they would still draw enough attention to provide revenue. Unless the state museum has been given sole custody of the artifacts, in which case, they can do whatever they want.

Jason Colavito link

12/20/2013 06:01:18 am

One thing to remember is just HOW MUCH stuff state museums have. I worked for a couple of years for the New York State Museum, and even with my access, I saw only a small fraction of the state's anthropology collection. I did get to see the oldest collected Native American artifacts, which aren't displayed for sensitivity reasons (several Native groups do not want their ancestors' sacred items on public display), and that was very interesting.

Unless you've been behind the scenes, you can't fathom what it's like to walk through miles of cabinets jammed with artifacts. A museum can only show a very small percentage of their material, and they don't waste precious floor space on things that aren't serving the museum's educational mission at any given time.

12/20/2013 12:06:46 pm

Yes, except that in this specific case, the museum had on display a rock as large as the KRS, with a sign saying something like "Unknown Mystery Stone." The several controversial runestones would only take up a tenth of the space.

I believe you, but in this case, available space is not a reason. The purpose the runestones aren't shown is to stifle alternative history speculation, I believe. They disguise this as protecting the public from known hoaxes, when in fact the objects belong to the public and the public should be allowed to see them.

To me, and to Wolter and many others, they seem absolutely genuine, and they go along with some of the other oddities in the Coastal area, including probably the Newport Tower. Not having them on display is a disservice to the public, who owns them.

12/20/2013 02:10:24 am

Ah transparency. Who needs it?! Let's just filter out all the comments we don't like and never address any of the real questions. I am curious how much of the "factual evidence" will turn into later episodes of AU as they run out of the tried and true hoaxes to espouse and get into Aliens and Mountains territory.

Curious note, a quite Googling of "Scott Wolter" fails to provide a link to his blog at all. Jason's article regarding Wolter's imaginary degree is still #1 for me, though I'm willing to allow for some Google shenanigans causing that to be a top result for me specifically since it does note that I've been to that page.

In fact, his 20-day old blog doesn't even appear on the first page. But this little gem does: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Wolter

Yes. The Wikipedia embargo has been lifted as of the 11th of this month. What follows is the entire text:

"Scott Wolter is an American television personality,[1] geologist[2] and author who is perhaps best known as the host of The History Channel television series America Unearthed.[2][3]"

12/20/2013 02:52:45 am

I'm intrigued by the statement made by Nancy Dubuc, the CEO of A&E Networks that includes the History Channel and H2. Apparently she is the person who ultimately reached the suspension decision about the Duck Dynasty cast member Phil Robertson who was suspended for remarks he made about homosexuality. She is quoted as stating that Robertson's remarks were in conflict with "the fundamental values of the company." Apparently a huge boycott campaign has been launched against A&E.
I would really like to know what A&E's "fundamental values" are related to much of what they put on the air.

12/20/2013 03:38:09 am

A&E as a private company can suspend Phil or cancel the series. Phil has the right to speak his mind. A&E is in a bad spot financially as the show generates so much income but they knew what they were getting into...

12/20/2013 04:48:55 am

Exactly...A&E is getting into excessive political correctness. We see excessive political correctness spreading out across the land like a stench. Homosexuality is a hot-button issue, even more than Black Jesus's and Santa's. From my take, if Phil Robertson wants to express a traditional Christian view about homosexuality, he should be backed up by the 1st Amendment. After all, my money STILL says "In God We Trust." Why is this message still on our money? Why can't one trust in God and also express Godly views about homosexuality on a frivolous TV show, if our Country was founded pretty much by Christians and we still declare God's importance in our Country's affairs, even through our money? A significant portion of this Country trusts God, so God's viewpoints are important in the scheme of things. So, I guess A&E is going against both God and the 1st Amendment in this, which seems strange. Homosexuals over God?

This is definitely political correctness going to far. A&E needs to repent and stop endorsing sinful homosexuality, and stop trying to take away Phil's God-given 1st Amendment right. This is supposed to be a nation of free speech, not blatant, repressive political correctness. Separation of church and state isn't the same as separation of church and TV shows. These TV personalities have 1st Amendment rights that extend to these shows. Here we have yet another fresh case of political correctness running amok.

Also, there is a serious problem with our Dear Leaders making room for and protecting same-sex marriage, while still outlawing plural marriage. This is unacceptable and hypocritical. As a Christian, I don't believe in either of these abstractions, but how is two men or women marrying any more acceptable than plural marriage? Either one can be construed as tampering with the traditional viewpoint, so how is one acceptable and the other not? This is the problem with the social tinkering of our previously defined, well-established view of marriage.

Should a homosexual have more rights to marry than a polygamist? If two homosexuals can marry, why can't several? Why is society putting the line at two people, after all, sin is sin.

12/20/2013 05:18:43 am

God doesn't exist. :)

12/20/2013 05:53:09 am

A&E is falling into that gray area, where they don't want to appear as supporting Phil's beliefs. Unfortunately, that means they have to pick and choose among their programming. It only becomes an issue when it draws, in their minds, negative publicity.

12/20/2013 06:05:07 am

By the way, Gunn, no one has a first amendment right to a TV show. A+E Networks isn't suppressing free speech. They're just saying that they won't keep paying someone whose views bring bad publicity to A&E. He's free to talk all he wants in any medium that will have him.

Would you consider it suppressing free speech that A+E's lawyers apparently wouldn't let America Unearthed accuse the Freemasons of plotting genocide so they had to disguise it as the NWO?

12/20/2013 06:39:39 am

The thing that has disgusted me the most with this whole Duck Dynasty thing has been finding out how ignorant people are as to what the first amendment is and how it works. I am truly shock and sadden by the amount of educated adults who have no idea. This is 4th or 5th grade stuff.

The more I read and notice how people misinterpret or simply don't know how it works I become less and less surprised that people believe the crap that shows like AA, AU, and its ilk provide.

It is just beyond shocking.

I posted this elsewhere and I will paste it here:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

Okay where in this does is say "a private organization". It doesn't it says "Congress". The first amendment does not apply to private organizations, websites, homes, churches, ect ect ect. So for example if you where in my house and I did not like what you where saying, I could censor you, kick you out, whatever I wanted to do, same with a private business or even a website. Sure if I kicked you out of my house you could go and stand on the public street and continue your rant as long as you did so peaceably and I could do nothing about it.

A&E made a decision that they do not want their public image to be represented by this man, for there own reasons, whether it is because he violated a code of conduct within his contract or the advertisers threatened to pull out or whatever. They decided that a suspension was due. They have every right to do so, just like Mc Donalds has ever right to fire an employee for cussing at work.

the simple fact that this many people do not understand what the 1rst amendment does and does not do worries me, How much of the bill of rights do people fail to understand. It proves to me we need a better education system and that we have a long long way to go.

12/20/2013 12:31:56 pm

"By the way, Gunn, no one has a first amendment right to a TV show. A+E Networks isn't suppressing free speech."

I beg your pardon, but yes, anyone at all has a first amendment right to a TV show, if one can afford to operate one, and if the content is allowed by applicable laws. Now who are you trying to restrict, Jason? I have a right to own and operate a TV show, and I can espouse whatever I like.

There comes a time when shrill voices come into play, though (political correctness ensues), and I suppose they can sound like fingernails on blackboards. But still, ordinary freedom of speech will prevail.

I hope A&E gets a huge Christian/Free-Speech backlash and learns a lesson. This crazy political correctness has to be reigned in. In this country, sin can still be called sin by the ordinary man on the ordinary TV show. The battle lines are rightfully being drawn, and I hope political correctness doesn't win out.

But then, with our nervy President openly supporting homosexual marriage, nothing would surprise me. I can't help wondering what the good Rev. Wright may have told him. Somehow, we were led to believe our President had Christian principles, seeing him there in church. We didn't learn anything from Bush, I guess, who turned out to be the very epitome of a Wolf in Sheep's Clothing. What is our current Dear Leader doing to our Dear Country? What is A&E trying to do to our Dear Country?

12/20/2013 12:36:28 pm

Did you notice, Gunn, that the Duck Dynasty guy (a) isn't paying for the TV show (they pay him), (b) doesn't own the production company, (c) does not own the network that carries the show, and (d) does not own the cable systems that carry the network. So, if he owned a cable system, a network, a production company, and a show, then, yes, he would have the right to broadcast whatsoever he pleased. Until then, the choice of who appears on TV is in the hands of the cable companies, the TV networks, and the show producers.

My rights

12/21/2013 12:06:13 am

Whether you're getting paid to be on TV, buying your own station, or just standing on the street, your right to free speech does not, in any way, immunize you from criticism. So if the DD guy wants to preach filth about gay people based on his religion or that black people were perfectly happy before the civil rights movement then he's legally allowed to do so. That being said it's my first amendment to say that I think he and all the bible thumping, racist, homophobic, rednecks that are categorizing that kind of nonsense as "good Christian values" are troglodytes. They are a lower form of our species whose brains have not evolved with the rest. I cannot truly express how disappointed I am that there is not a counter movement within the Christian community that denounces these ideas as they are fast turning the perception of that faith into a hate group in the public consciousness.

Gunn, you're a bigot and religious zealot and unlike your friend Wolter there's plenty of evidence currently on that claim with much more to come as soon as you read this, I'm sure.

I say good riddance to bigots like Phil and Gunn any time we can get rid of their superstitious, hate filled BS.

Just for clarification if you are for curtailing the rights of a group of people because you're uncomfortable with them, you ARE a bigot.

Don't be a hater. Just exercising my first amendment rights.

12/21/2013 04:02:14 am

Of course, the real problem is that Phil was expressing his faith. A&E can have on their shows all the obviously nonsensical material related to complete foolishness, but when it comes to Phil being able to express a portion of his faith, that is unacceptable. This is bigotry.

Let me remind the few possibly demon-inspired commenters here that this is a Nation in which a significant portion of her citizens DO believe in God. We will be represented, on TV and on this blog. Another reminder: God Himself says that if you don't believe in His existence, then you are a fool...very simply.

This blog, in public domain, represents the views of many, and that's the way it should be on run-of-the-mill TV shows, too. Calling God's definition of sin, sin, should not be subjected to overt political correctness, in the public arena where a goodly portion of citizens believe homosexuality is bad. Expressing a common viewpoint of faith, expressing his faith, is a foul reason for suspension. A&E is cowardly. Right now, their collective knees are probably shaking....

12/21/2013 08:05:01 am

Dammit Gunn... Calling commenters here "demon-inspired" sounds like just the sort of thing someone inspired by a demon might spout. Your definition of how sin is defined by the bible isn't THE definition, and all of Christendom doesn't agree with you or Phil Robertson -- otherwise the Church wouldn't have sanctioned homosexual marriages up through the 18th century (fact).

Check out John Boswell's work; he uncovered dozens of Church documents portraying same-sex marriage rites going back to at least the 8th century. A legal scholar, Richard Ante, has even written an article on how Boswell's research could be used as evidence for the legality of same-sex marriage (http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1261&context=twlj). The Catholic Church didn't change its opinion until the 1400's, and the Orthodox Church even later -- there are records of same-sex (male and female) Orthodox Church-overseen marriages in the 18th century. (You probably can't see this, but http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/features/1998/0811/98081100088.html)

So what's it going to be? You can't have it both ways. The Church has supported same-sex unions a lot longer than it was against them. So was the Church just wrong in the past? Did millions of clergy from across continents somehow misinterpret god's infallible word that you and Phil Robertson managed to get right? And if the Church was wrong back in the day, then why should Christians base any of their beliefs on the history of the faith as presented by that clearly wrong and clearly fallible institution? Really, who's the demon-inspired hate-spewer here, you or the Church?

12/21/2013 09:25:11 am

"So was the Church just wrong in the past? Did millions of clergy from across continents somehow misinterpret god's infallible word that you and Phil Robertson managed to get right?

Darn it, The Other J., yes, just like in other issues--such as inquisitor torture, the church leaders at the time were wrong. Sometimes the church leaders were wrong. The church in history can be looked at somewhat like a person...the person can be on-track or off-track at times in his life. Yes, millions got it wrong, including all the entrenched gay child molesters.

God is normally capitalized.

12/21/2013 09:36:13 am

By the way, check out C. S. Lewis, "The Screw-tape Letters." It is not unusual at all for a Christian to think that someone's conversation, motives, etc., are demon-inspired. In this case, I didn't intend the term to be taken as a barb...no, but as an actual suggestion that persons here could be, in fact, demon-inspired.

That is, if you believe in the power of the Devil. But this gets into the area of Christian lukewarm-ness and how much power the Devil does or does not have, and the discussion at this level may not be appreciated for its religious zeal looking into spiritual/human darkness.

Once in a while you hear, "The Devil made me do it." In fact, this would usually be demons influencing the person to do it...as recognized by the hapless victim.

12/21/2013 10:37:35 am

You still didn't answer -- if the church was wrong in the past, how can you be so damn sure your interpretation is the correct one today? You can't -- you're just imposing your own culturally and sociologically-influenced perspective on everyone and everything you see, which is patronizing and offensive and assholish. I've read C.S. Lewis (a one-time atheist), and that interpretation of "demon" only matters if you assume demons are real, and not just a part of your own consicousness speaking to you. And just using a figure of speech doesn't make that thing real -- otherwise every time you knocked on wood for luck you would also be professing a belief that you were knocking the faeries out of that wood before they brought you bad luck, or waking them to bring you good luck. I don't believe in that stuff, certainly not as a matter of evidence-free faith that you do, and I won't capitalize a god's name whose name isn't supposed to be mentioned in the first place -- it's just another god among a universe of gods. Still, among all the varied interpretations of scripture, what makes you so certain that your interpretation is correct? And doesn't such a certainty betray a self-important hubris that belies the kind of humbleness your faith requests?

And just in case, I didn't intend "assholish" as a barb, just a suggestion of what you can be when you're calling people names and imposing your self-righteous beliefs on others in these comments. There's a reason I almost never respond to you here, but there's also no reason to let someone get away with regularly calling others here offensive names without a response, otherwise you'll just keep it up and think it's okay. It's not. Are you really looking for someone to bully you back?

12/21/2013 11:17:56 am

"God is normally capitalized."

For people who still believe in Santa Claus, Unicorns, and Bigfoot.

Better be careful everybody or Gunn's going to psychically talk to his invisible friend and then you'll be sorry.

12/22/2013 02:40:15 am

"...you're just imposing your own culturally and sociologically-influenced perspective on everyone and everything you see, which is patronizing and offensive and assholish."

I'm not imposing anything. I'm cued-in to the topic at hand, and both you and I are free to make comments without imposing anything. I can't impose anything on you, even when/if you force yourself to read it. Nevertheless, I hope I have a bit of sway with you, for your own sake, when considering your ultimate destination.

Your stance is that it is okay to slam God here, but it's not okay to espouse anything related to God as Creator. You will always attack and make look as foolish Christians and others who believe in God, as though your thought process is more refined...by the miracle of science.

Again, this stems from the smugness that comes with not believing in God. The Other J, and D, you know that I consider you both to be fools by Biblical definition, and you think I am a fool, so we are pretty far apart. I will hold out hope for you two. Keep thinking everything over...sooner or later, hopefully, you will come to your senses. Look around you, at nature, it helps....

12/23/2013 04:30:33 am

Gunn, enough. Where do you get off saying you're not imposing anything, and then telling me that my stance is it's okay to slam god? Don't you realize that when YOU determine what my stance is on anything -- without even having the courtesy to ask what my stance may be -- that you're imposing your perspective on me? Do you realize that when you call people demon-inspired that you're imposing your perspective on everyone here who doesn't agree with your self-determined biblically-informed points of view, even other Christians who might share your faith? That's not only rude, but it shows you to be either not able to recognize your own own contradiction or that you're fine with being hypocritical. Just because someone doesn't accept your biblically-informed point of view doesn't make them demon-inspired, but calling people who don't agree "demon-inspired" does make you an asshole.

And note what you did: You still didn't answer my original question, and instead jumped to calling me a fool and cry that people are attacking your faith. I don't care about your faith; I care about the way you profess it by attacking others here. Where do you see me "slamming" god in these comments? I talk about god here about as much as I talk about Paul Bunyan. See, what you've just done is again impose your persecuted-Christian perspective on me, without any evidence.

Talk about smug; whatever makes you feel better, buddy. Just know that I at least don't take your own jabs costumed in fake politeness as anything other than a way to be snide while pretending to be godly; an insult in religious robes is still an insult. You and I are not going to converse much more because I don't have much more to say to you and you only have smiling scorn for me. But if I bother to read something you've written and see you baselessly insulting and attacking others here through religious rhetoric, and I then come at you about it, I'm coming after YOU, not your holy book. Don't confuse the two.

psCargile

12/21/2013 01:42:31 am

I'd say their "fundamental values" are whatever they need to be in any given moment depending on what agenda needs to be served.

Their Mission is stated as being: ". . . passionate about bringing human stories to life, knowing that it is in life itself that those stories originate. We are committed to empowering our employees, strengthening our partnerships and engaging audiences across the globe.

Life is what you make it. We make it entertaining."

12/21/2013 04:12:18 am

Thanks psCargile for sharing their mission statement but that's not the same as the core "fundamental" values or principles that an organization or company aspires to.

12/21/2013 04:20:50 am

"Life is what you make it. We make it repressive. We make employees sign contracts which serve to restrict their personal free speech. We like robots that look like people, but can be programmed to prevent them from saying anything that we ourselves consider to be unpleasant. We are God-averse, but sin-happy. Welcome to our show. Please, everyone, leave your faith at the door...we're getting scared."

12/20/2013 07:11:54 am

A&E set up the interview with GQ. Had Phil agreed in his contract that he would do these interviews and, if asked questions about his religion, would answer in a way that A&E would approve of? Probably they can do what they did with no explanation, but it has a whiff of hypocrisy. At any rate, A&E has killed the redneck that laid the golden egg.

12/20/2013 07:23:30 am

It is very common that there are ethical standards clause in a host or actors contract. I would not be surprised if A&E is using a contract clause to justify their decision from a legal standpoint so they do not have to pay him. I also would not be surprised if they use the same clause to prevent them from moving to another network until the length of time the employment contract runs out. I bet both side have a ton of lawyers meeting to work all this out. But if he did violate his contract A&E effectively end his television career for several years.

12/20/2013 07:40:46 am

Cable TV shows are all touch and go. They are not under any contract beyond the coming year, which is already filmed. I think A&E made a business blunder on the magnitude of The New Coke. You can't buy publicity like what the family is getting now. Their brand has tripled in value overnight.

12/20/2013 08:20:11 am

Fair enough most shows are contracted on a yearly basis but in the contract there is normally a clause which sets a certain time period before the show or sometimes the characters (in the case of reality program the individual) can go be on a competing network. This just recently happened to Anthony Bordain when he ended his run and contract with Travel channel, he had to wait a year before starting his show in CNN.

I do see this as the end of Duck Dynasty on A&E, I doubt they will continue the series for another season. Most likely A&E was ready to move on anyway (much like Food Channel was with Paula Dean) since there is a current proliferation of "hillbilly" (for lack of a better term) reality shows now. Most likely they would of only gotten two more seasons out of the show anyway. And sadly I am sure they will find another sub culture to exploit and in their minds get ahead of the reality trend curve like they did with Duck Dynasty.

12/20/2013 09:47:46 am

Mr. Phil has the right to speak his opinions, when his opinions include hate speech, I and everybody else, have the right to not support his opinions. We have the right to object to his views and to express our disapproval of those views. We do not have to tolerate hate speech. Freedom comes with responsibilities. That is something that seems to have been lost/forgotten by a large segment of the American public.

12/20/2013 10:09:47 am

No. I don't agree with Phil, but it is unfair to say there was anything close to hate speech. First, he was booked by A&E for an interview with a publication where they should have knows opinions might clash. Then he was asked questions about his personal religion. He was asked what "he" considered to be sin. And he answered.

12/21/2013 07:21:55 am

Apparently there are videos of his sermons preaching the same sort of anti-gay sentiments going back to 2010, so A&E should have known what they were getting into.

A&E owns Lifetime, which shows Project Runway, so maybe Phil Robertson and Tim Gunn can have a heart to heart and the network can make squillions off that.

Actually, an interesting comparison would be to see which show makes A&E more money, Project Runway or Duck Dynasty. That will probably tell us more about where their support stand or fall.

12/25/2013 07:21:21 am

Bristol Palin has leaped into the DUCK DYNASTY + GQ controversy!
John McCain is praying that her mother stays out of the S.C senate
race, he hopes the Tea Party 100% fails at retiring Lindsey Graham.
I saw a commercial on my local TV for DUCK DYNASTY chia pets.
i think if the UNCLE PHILs don't sell, they can be repackaged as
ZZ TOP chia heads. Our POTUS had one done a few years back.

12/20/2013 05:23:20 pm

You have touched on precisely on why I'm just a bit exasperated with this particular incident, Lynn. I think it's deplorable that the man has such an attitude, to state first and foremost. But on the other hand, for crying out loud, why did no one EXPECT the answers he gave? Look at the subculture from which he came! They are a deeply devout people, on the whole, and no, not all that tolerant. Even the two episodes I actually saw were enough that his answer to that question surprises me not the least--and yes, I know the show doesn't cover their religion. I just happen to be familiar with that subculture. If A&E were stupid enough to sign someone up for a reality TV show without bothering to check into that, they deserve to have their reputation take a hit. If they looked into it and didn't bother to sit down and express that while they didn't expect him to change his beliefs, his official response to that question should be "No comment" or even "A&E says I can't talk about it," they deserve the hit.

If, on the other hand, they did have a word with him and he answered the way he did anyway, then HE deserves to take the hit. First Amendment doesn't come into it in that situation; he was told, in that scenario, to say nothing and had the chance to tell A&E that he wouldn't sign such a contract.

And frankly, I have yet to see anything that indicates whether they had that little talk or not, so I just remain exasperated with the shock and surprise. And yes, even the outrage. When the drunk neighbor at the BBQ says the same thing, it doesn't make it onto the news, after all.

12/21/2013 02:05:13 am

On Phil Robertson's tolerance of homosexuals from the GQ article by Drew Magary:

"As far as Phil is concerned, he was literally born again. Old Phil—the guy with the booze and the pills—died a long time ago, and New Phil sees no need to apologize for him: 'We never, ever judge someone on who’s going to heaven, hell. That’s the Almighty’s job. We just love ’em, give ’em the good news about Jesus—whether they’re homosexuals, drunks, terrorists. We let God sort ’em out later, you see what I’m saying?'"

Read More http://www.gq.com/entertainment/television/201401/duck-dynasty-phil-robertson#ixzz2o7cQWrpJ

12/20/2013 07:50:28 am

My question relates to the quote from A&E's CEO Nancy Dubuc.
I would like her to be asked to disclose what the A&E "fundamental values" are?
How do those fundamental values square with the programming they allow independent producers to bring to them: i.e. Prometheus - Ancient Aliens, Committee Films - America Unearthed?
I't's crystal clear what they DON"T value:
They obviously don't value the accuracy of the claims made on these programs. They don't value fact checking. Therefore, they DON"T give a damn if the public is misinformed, as long as they have viewers, get ratings and sell advertisement.
It's shameful and sickening!

12/20/2013 12:49:20 pm

I would like to hear "that woman" explain A&E's fundamental free speech values, since they're involved with communicating. They have a responsibility to free speech as much as they do to political correctness. Some cowards buckled under the weight of shrill voices on this one, I think. I agree that A&E is unethical in their response, but also very obviously un-Christian, if that counts for anything...and it should in my opinion. In this case, A&E has taken the side of the sinners...unnecessarily, I might add.

Nancy Dubuc

12/20/2013 04:47:15 pm

A&E's fundamental values are whatever will make the most money.

Nancy Dubuc

12/25/2013 09:33:58 am

Y'all know ANIMAL PLANET's CGI Mermaid Special metaphorically
killed off any academic legitimacy the Aquatic Ape Theorists had
built up from the 1960s in a few short hours? Can we say a few words
about P.T Barnum and the legendary Fiji Mermaid or do we have to?

Carl

12/20/2013 08:25:58 pm

"A&E has taken the side of the sinners...".

12/20/2013 10:33:12 pm

I don't know how this thread got from Scott Wolter to Phil Robertson, but one more comment - I see where Camille Paglia, uber feminist lesbian, has said that it was utterly fascistic in a society that values freedom to have persecuted Phil. You don't set someone up to speak from the heart about their religion and then try to take them down for it. If it has been an Islamic cleric proclaiming that God hates Jews, then A&E would have been calling for tolerance.

12/21/2013 02:18:09 am

Well said, Lynn. I've told many in the past, "If you don't want to know what I'm thinking, then don't ask for my opinion."

You can disagree with someone's opinion, even with their beliefs, but it's pointless to get into an uproar after you've asked them to speak their mind.

duh

12/21/2013 02:19:47 am

That statement is just dumb and you should feel stupid for making it.

12/25/2013 09:50:46 am

in the late 1930s Clark Gable had to be at the premiere of GWTW
in Altanta, Georgia. Hattie McDaniel even got a supporting Oscar
for her role in the film based on Margaret Mitchell's famous book.
if someone in the "in house" PR dep't asked upper management to
ask/suggest to Uncle Phil to do the GQ interview so "good will" is
then generated in a very favorable way, what can i say further about
the older management style companies had prior to the 1960s or 1970s that tended to be from the top on down with little feedback
from anyone else??? Interviews are sometimes a very bright idea!!!

12/21/2013 04:31:12 am

It's odd how calling out Biblically defined sin can be considered hate speech. This is the root of the problem.

Good point, Only Me, about him being asked his opinion in the first place. I don't think A&E adequately considered the context. Their shaking knees may have rattled their brains....

johnnycake

12/21/2013 05:27:15 am

No. The problem is fundamentalist Christians believing that all of human existence is defined by an extreme, literal reading of an allegorical text and that they have a right to impose that view on everyone else. Your beliefs are yours. Keep them to yourself. That's where they belong.

12/21/2013 05:50:46 am

Opinions are expressed on blogs like this. Your opinion was just expressed. Should your opinions be kept to yourself...or just other peoples' opinions? Expressing one's views is not imposing, unless you, yourself, are imposing. You seem confused.

12/21/2013 07:22:35 am

And you seem obtuse. You clearly possess no ability to think beyond your own personal religious views. Take yourself out of the game, Bob. You're not helping.

12/21/2013 07:30:37 am

Funny, I thought these were Christian viewpoints, important, moral viewpoints based on the bible and sent from God himself. Are you saying the bible is a matter of opinion, Gunn? Because it sounds like you are in which case no one should feel bad about criticizing Phil. It's only his opinion, right?

12/21/2013 09:53:20 am

Your viewpoints sound kind of queer.

Titus pullo

12/21/2013 05:22:44 am

Back to Scott Wolter. Will he be on the new oak island show on H2? Will he investigate the Cardiff giant? That's one for you jason given where you grew up..ha ha. What would make a great series on H2 is a production of the book the arctic grail. I picked up the book one winter day and read for two days straight...

12/21/2013 07:35:11 am

I don't expect much from Wolter's blog, and probably won't visit; if Wolter is admonishing visitors to only offer positive comments and is censoring, then there's not point in going there -- it'll just reiterate what's on his show.

However, what could be interesting is how this plays out with the producers of the show and the network. Someone in another comment on the last recap mentioned that Wolter had made a quip about how he was portrayed in a particular scene -- "that was the producers."

You could see honest, Wolter-loving fans raising questions that have more to do with production value and editing than with any evidence he discloses (or fails to find), and Wolter then admitting on his site that it was the production company's attempt to make drama rather than anything real. That in turn could make for some real friction with his producers and possibly the network -- where Wolter seems to be countering on his site what the show presents on the network.

Like I said, I don't expect much from the site, but such a turn of events would at least be honest.

12/25/2013 10:07:22 am

i went back into SW's neat blog a short while ago
to see if i could spot anything sorta new and there
simply wasn't. this lil ole blog has had way more
activity over the past 72 hours and a most healthy
diversity of opines and opinion. SW sincerely blogs
at slow intervals, all comments are rare and not at
all well done. methink his admin orders steak thusly?
Whitley Strieber over time often reads many of the
threads at unknowncountry.com and has posted at
his own site. SW is way behind the learning curve, he
needs to know how to be "hands on" in a good way!!!

12/25/2013 10:14:39 am

i think SW's blog was set up as a response
to this lil ole blog, but i won't have a total proof
positive for this hypothesis until SW does a
bit more blogging, and if in the grand interval
between now and when i shall have MY proof
positive, SW's blog sorta sits there inert + alone...

12/27/2013 07:31:49 am

To Scott Wolter's credit, he replied to RLewis's posting
from the 23rd in a careful and cautious manner. I did not
expect he'd put a crude translation on his blog about the
N.C runes in any hurry but its nice he's being thoughtfully
longer than a blackberry missive. I'm hoping he does get
new experts who can semi-translate all the many runes...

RLewisDecember 23, 2013 at 8:27 AM
I felt this latest episode teased but didn't deliver. The Heavener Stone supposedly says something like Gnome or Grome Valley, but you never elaborated. Three other stones (two in photographs and Milwood), where shown but never translated, Nomans stone was never shown (at least on film). It would have really helped if you would have shown an expert(s) translating the runes on camera. Or are you claiming that these runes cannot be translated by anyone today? In that case, they could have been written by anyone and say anything. I don't see how that supports your Vikings-in-USA claim.


Scott WolterDecember 26, 2013 at 6:47 PM
We did say the most likely explanation for the Heavener Rune Stone is it is a land claim possibly left by a historical figure named Glome. The Noman's Land Island Rune Stone is only known through photographs of the inscription that appear in Annie Wood's 1931 book when the stone was on the beach at low tide. We also paraphrased the inscription as saying, "Leif Ericksson, 1001. There are two additional lines carved below that are not discernable in the photos. This is why the stone needs to come out of the water.

In 2003, when I first visited the stone I could feel the carved grooves. On this latest trip it was underwater again and not able to be filmed. However, I was able to again feel the grooves, so maybe it can still be salvaged.

I don't believe the Millwood Rune Stone is of Viking age, I think it is of late medieval age. I wasn't the least bit surprised when the runic expert, whose identity I never learned, said they couldn't decipher it and just had to add the comment that "It was probably modern."

Just once, I'd like a scholar to simply say, "I don't know and it needs further study." The Millwood inscription, like the Kensington Rune Stone, is filled with dotted runes, symbols and codes. No wonder the scholars have no clue. These are unique documents that they should try to learn from, not try to find any way, and every way, to dismiss them.

You are correct the Millwood Rune Stone doesn't provide evidence to support Vikings in America. However, I am confident it will withstand objective scrutiny over time. Remember, we’re doing the best we can with what little known evidence that remains.

RLewisDecember 27, 2013 at 7:37 AM
Thank you for your reply. Can you tell me who the expert was that
looked at the Millwood stone (or the institution they worked for)? It's not that I don't believe you (I do) but I would like to ask them directly why they thought the inscription was modern. Also, can you shed any light on the other two stones that were shown in the photographs (or is that for a future episode :)?

Colin Hunt

1/3/2014 05:25:52 am

Back to Wolter. A true investigative scientist, as he claims to be, welcomes critical comments, realizing that they are contributing to an international debate, and that criticism is a positive contribution to the advancement of knowledge. The fact that he has to approve, and remove, any comments from his site that contradict his views is a sign of paranoia and a wish to maintain a view, against all established knowledge, science, and common sense, that he knows more that hundreds of far more qualified scientists and decades of far greater investigative science. He is putting himself above all established academics and those decades of real science. To say that is arrogant is an understatement. To block constructive arguments is pure self-aggrandizement arrogance. But I guess its all about money, not truth. He has come from relative obscurity and made a lot of money, so does he care if he is wrong. I guess not. We all love farce comedies so I guess he is appealing to the masses in that respect.

1/3/2014 05:36:35 am

s P.S. It's great that Jason allows comments, such as mine above, to immediately appear on his website. He is an open-minded person, unfearful of criticism, with an unbiased opinion and site. Try sending even a mildly suggestive/critical comment to Scott Wolter's site, it will never pass approval and get published, only congratulatory comments accepted by him. An open minded investigative scientist, what a joke!

1/5/2014 07:32:40 am

Colin- Wolter and these producers might be making a lot of money for their dishonest programming but in the long run they will be known for churning out episode after episode, condemning and ridiculing academics, providing nothing of educational value, and misinforming the public. THIS is the legacy they will leave.

James

1/7/2014 04:34:00 pm

Scott Wolter, as I watch him more and more, is, in my expert opinion (I am a behavioral analyst) A narcissist. He does not really care about facts. He gets it in his head that his theory, or a theory, is correct, and then he ignores anyone or anything that says different or disproves his thesis.

I'd point to the story of him falsifying his credentials, we see this ALOT with narcissists, they NEED the recognition of having the title, but innevitably they are unable to finish any length of schooling to get said title, in most cases they begin to see themselves as more knowledgable than all of their teachers, and so they, in most cases, drop out and lie about graduating, In many circumstances forging documents to carry their story.

I have now watched about 5 episodes of Scott's show. He clearly shows almost EVERY tell tale sign of being an extreme narcissist. The way he never allows anyone to speak a word that goes against what he believes and if they do, you can see how much it upsets him, he usually responds with a cocky comment. Like The "Dare stone" episode, he went to see a young man who had actual, REAL evidence that The colonists went to this Island, Wolter, instead of hearing out this mans side of the story and discussing it like a scientist should, he starts screaming about courts of law and evidence and facts.... mind you, he has no facts or evidence, but in a narcissists mind, he does not NEED facts, if he can be louder and get the last word, then in his mind, he won and he is right, he can (again, in his head) leave with his manhood intact.

We see further evidence of this with the way he is running his "Blog". He takes the dictator like approach of overseeing then denying, deleting, or approving, EVERY single comment himself, He does this because the insult of having someone disagree with HIM on HIS website would be far too much for any Narcissist to handle. That would be blasphemy to him. The ultimate disrespect (when to most scientific bloggers this is common place and expected) This is much like how a dictator would rule over his or her territory, not allowing any rational discussion or debate, not allowing anyone to be "negative" or to disagree with anything he has to say. And we know how many dictators are also Narcissists (all of them are)

The fact that he is going to "edit" any rational debate on topics that are supposedly of scientific and historical basis is likely the biggest piece of evidence that I have that Mr. Wolter is not interested in the truth, or proving anything. He could care less if Vikings made it here before Columbus, in fact if he had been the one to saw they did NOT come here, then he would be fighting just as hard to prove that, with loud voices, lawsuits, and confusion tactics... all absolutely devoid of proof or reason. Make no mistake, this show of his, to him, is about nothing more than stroking his own ego. Feeding his Narcissism.

Another huge warning sign, by the way, of Classic Narcissism and in his case Extreme Narcissism, is referring to yourself in the third person. ... In my line of work, this, along with getting angry and irrational when someone disagree's with you, are the two tell tale things we look for when deciding on whether or not someone shows signs of narcissistic behavior.

Anyway, just my 2 cents...

benson maxwell

9/23/2014 03:30:41 am

DO YOU WANT TO BE ILLUMINATI MEMBER,
THE WORLD OF MONEY,FAME AND POWER,
BOTH INTERNATIONAL AND LOCAL TO BE RICH
AND LIVE A SUCCESSFUL LIFE, OR
ARE YOU TALENTED IN ANY ASPECT IN LIFE AND
WANT TO BE CONNECTED WORLD WIDE OR
YOU ARE PASSING THROUGH A DIFFICULT SITUATION
AND WANT TO BE RICH URGENTLY AND EASILY ,
THIS IS THE TIME FOR YOU DURING THIS RECRUITMENT.
THIS IS A CHANCE FOR YOU TO GET RICH,
GAT POWER AND CONNECTED WORLD WIDE.
AM FROM UNITED KINGDOM AND BELIEVE THAT MONEY RULE
THE WORLD AND IT CONTROL EVERYTHING ,
THE ILLUMINATI IS A SECRET ELITE THAT IS SET
TO GIVES MONEY,FAME AND POWER TO OBEDIENT CREATURES
NO MATTER WHERE ARE FROM AND WHERE YOU ARE NOW.
DO YOU HAVE INTEREST IN IT AND READY TO OBEY
THE RULES AND COOPERATE
CALL US NOW ON +447053822660
EMAIL US ON (Illuminatichief70@gmail.com)