Scott Wolter Joins Blogosphere, Requests Fans Comment with "Factual" Evidence and No "Negativity"
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:
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.
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?
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
12/19/2013 10:53:37 am
I clicked on the link and looked at the comments on SW's blog.
12/19/2013 05:17:26 pm
Now that's just unfair...to Bobo.
The Other J.
12/20/2013 11:49:25 am
Squatchin' is a science, not like paleoarchaeoastrogastronomy.
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?
12/19/2013 01:55:55 pm
From my own experience, a backpack is an excellent way to carry books.
12/19/2013 12:21:13 pm
So, the very best ever friend of Jason has his own blog now?
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.
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
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).
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.
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)"
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.
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."
12/20/2013 12:19:46 am
This man has a PhD...oh wait...
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 Other J.
12/21/2013 07:37:00 am
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?
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?
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.)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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."
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.
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.
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.
The Other J.
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).
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?
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.
The Other J.
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?
12/21/2013 11:17:56 am
"God is normally capitalized."
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."
The Other J.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The Other J.
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.
12/25/2013 07:21:21 am
Bristol Palin has leaped into the DUCK DYNASTY + GQ controversy!
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.
12/21/2013 02:05:13 am
On Phil Robertson's tolerance of homosexuals from the GQ article by Drew Magary:
12/20/2013 07:50:28 am
My question relates to the quote from A&E's CEO Nancy Dubuc.
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.
12/20/2013 04:47:15 pm
A&E's fundamental values are whatever will make the most money.
12/25/2013 09:33:58 am
Y'all know ANIMAL PLANET's CGI Mermaid Special metaphorically
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."
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
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.
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.
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...
The Other J.
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.
12/25/2013 10:07:22 am
i went back into SW's neat blog a short while ago
12/25/2013 10:14:39 am
i think SW's blog was set up as a response
12/27/2013 07:31:49 am
To Scott Wolter's credit, he replied to RLewis's posting
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.
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.
9/23/2014 03:30:41 am
Your comment will be posted after it is approved.
Leave a Reply.
I am an author and researcher focusing on pop culture, science, and history. Bylines: New Republic, Esquire, Slate, etc. There's more about me in the About Jason tab.
Enter your email below to subscribe to my newsletter for updates on my latest projects, blog posts, and activities, and subscribe to Culture & Curiosities, my Substack newsletter.
Terms & Conditions
Please read all applicable terms and conditions before posting a comment on this blog. Posting a comment constitutes your agreement to abide by the terms and conditions linked herein.