Scott Wolter has a very unusual way of trying to make controversies go away. He chooses to devote one of his rare blog posts to complaining about my January 2013 blog post questioning whether Wolter had received an honorary master’s degree. Apparently this issue has either stuck in his craw or has created problems for Wolter since he has chosen to deliver yet another statement about the issue, this time in a forum which he controls. He threatens me with potential legal action and asserts that I am creating a false myth about his honesty. Wolter refuses to discuss me by name, which is apparently fringe history’s version of declaring me Him Who Must Not Be Named. According to Wolter, my honest question of whether the credentials given for Wolter in his various pre-America Unearthed media appearances were correct is in fact a piece of devious propaganda designed to humiliate him: “The blog was cleverly written so as to not outright assert I was misrepresenting my qualifications, but it certainly did give readers the impression I was somehow claiming to be somebody I wasn’t.” He accuses me of creating a “myth” about him through selective editing and nefariously removing his response to me to purge the record. Wolter falsely accuses me of deleting his response to my blog post. This is false. It is still there, just as it has been since January 2013, labeled under 01/22/2013 6:49pm. Wolter lied, and I expect his apology for coming very close to libeling me through his reckless disregard of the truth that a simple scroll through the comments would have demonstrated. I wouldn’t mention his reckless disregard of the truth except for his other attack on me. Wolter threatens me with further legal action, failing to disclose to his readers that A+E Networks threatened legal action against me on his behalf in 2013. “While the debunker’s post falls just short of the bar necessary to initiate legal action, future events could change the current situation.” Does he really want to go down this road again? The last time he tried this, it ended with A+E Networks forcing his publisher to add a disclaimer to his Akhenaten to the Founding Fathers specifying that his own network does not endorse Wolter’s views. I bet you’d like to know why Wolter is upset about this now. Fortunately, he tells us. Due to his own and H2’s poor choices in creating a web presence for Wolter, “Unfortunately, this misleading post has made its way to the top position on Google when people search for my name looking for information about me.” That’s because Wolter doesn’t have a single personal web presence (he has sites for the Hooked X and his blog), doesn’t use basic search engine optimization, and doesn’t have rich content that makes Google think of his web presence as credible and relevant. I’ve offered fringe theorists this same advice for years now: I shouldn’t be the top match for them, but they choose not to engage with their audiences with a rich web presence. I’m not doing anything to make myself the top match for their names. It’s entirely due to their own failures. Wolter concludes that I am irresponsible, uninterested in truth, and trying to hurt him: In the future I’m sure we will all look back and recall these “Wild West” days of the Internet. I was prepared for the personal attacks and attempts to marginalize and dismiss my work on the controversial subject matter we investigate on the show and in real life. People like this aren’t really interested in the truth; they are interested in turning the attention onto themselves so they can espouse their own personal “beliefs.” Just to refresh our memories, here is how Wolter described himself in 2008 in an official biography provided to the American Institute of Professional Geologists, since removed from the internet. In the screen shot, his education is highlighted for easier reading: Now here is where I am in a tough position. I have a lot of damaging information about Scott Wolter that I do not share with my readers because it isn’t appropriate or relevant. I am extremely careful about what I release to the public because it is important to me that I follow the highest standards of journalism, historiography, and criticism.
But now Wolter is not just attacking my claims but threatening me with future legal action to try to intimidate me into silence. So what do I do? Am I supposed to fire back? Am I supposed to pretend that this public figure with a very large public platform isn’t threatening me? Mr. Wolter has directly attacked my honesty, my integrity, and my basic human decency. Remember, my original blog post accused him of nothing; it only said that I found no record to support claims made on his behalf and in his official biography and asked him to provide documentation of the degree that appeared in his biography. So in answer to Wolter’s implied threat, I will provide a specific rejoinder rather than vague claims of secret information. I will remind Mr. Wolter of Minnesota case 05-CX-88-00692 Albert H. Peterson v. Scott Wolter (verdict on June 27, 1989; closed in 1990), which I obtained directly from the court and hold in certified copy. Glass houses, Mr. Wolter. This court case contains damaging information about Wolter that is directly relevant to understanding Wolter's expertise and credibility, and I was ready this morning to publish the documents in full in order to help support many of the criticisms I have offered of Wolter's work. But I decided that it was not the right time. I am holding off because these documents, while directly relevant to Wolter's expertise in fringe history, might also affect his career outside of fringe history and I want to give Wolter the chance to back away from his threats and stop this stupid game of threatening legal action over things which are entirely true and over things that have not happened.
349 Comments
Only Me
9/16/2014 04:20:15 am
My Wolterian senses are tingling.
Reply
Matt Mc
9/16/2014 04:45:53 am
But remember Only Me, Steve STC will take screenshots..... screenshots.
Reply
Only Me
9/16/2014 05:24:48 am
That's okay. For all his bluster, there's not a thing he can do except piss into the wind.
EP
9/16/2014 05:31:33 am
Piss *against* the wind, Only Me. Piss *against* the wind. :)
EP
9/16/2014 05:06:05 am
I got some things to keep Steve StC busy :)
Reply
Only Me
9/16/2014 05:27:48 am
;)
666
9/16/2014 08:04:57 am
Wolter is wrong.
Reply
Scott Hamilton
9/16/2014 04:56:54 am
One quick clarification: The case is in Minnesota's online court database as 05-CX-88-00692. You need exactly that format to find it.
Reply
9/16/2014 05:12:19 am
Thanks for noting that, Scott. I updated the number in the post above. I took the number from the paper copy, which has a slightly different format, but this will make it easier to find online.
Reply
EP
9/16/2014 05:34:24 am
Also, I'd like to direct your attention to Minnesota case No. 10-C5-96-000519 9/16/2014 05:36:52 am
Almost certainly. I had heard that there were additional cases, though I haven't researched that one yet.
Joe
9/18/2014 08:51:38 pm
I don't know why but anytime I attempt to look up the case names on the only site for any public Minnesota court records nothing comes up. 9/18/2014 11:38:39 pm
Use this site: http://pa.courts.state.mn.us/default.aspx
Scott Hamilton
9/16/2014 05:11:11 am
"People like this aren’t really interested in the truth; they are interested in turning the attention onto themselves so they can espouse their own personal 'beliefs.'"
Reply
EP
9/16/2014 05:19:02 am
Just read Wolter's post... Is he having a mental breakdown? No seriously, what the hell is wrong with him?
Reply
9/16/2014 05:20:59 am
It's those kind of statements that make his court case so directly relevant. I wonder if he remembers what he said under oath and what the judge ruled about that.
Reply
9/16/2014 05:22:09 am
Though to be fair, I don't know whether he was actually under oath then, only what the judge ruled about his lawyer's claims.
EP
9/16/2014 05:23:56 am
Jason, I hate to be a fly in the ointment, but you did promise to publish those documents a while ago... :) 9/16/2014 05:34:48 am
I did, but the problem is that to do so and avoid libel, it requires using a multipart test under US law, even for public records. I'm looking into getting legal opinions on this to make sure I am covered. I was hoping a larger group (with lawyers) would publish them first, since that would put them squarely in the public domain.
EP
9/16/2014 05:42:08 am
I have no doubt you're fine, for what it's worth. Of course, I ain't no big city lawyer...
CHV
9/16/2014 08:50:16 am
How can someone be sued for libel for making public records which are already in the public domain?
EP
9/16/2014 08:55:18 am
I believe Jason is worried that he might not get the same First Amendment protections journalists get. While that is possible, the issue won't ever come up in all likelihood, since Wolter would have his own "multi-part test" to pass and (spoilers) he won't. 9/16/2014 09:02:39 am
While I have every confidence that publishing the records is not libelous, someone could in theory argue that the documents contain private facts or that publishing them was designed to cause malicious harm to his reputation, particularly because the case centers on his expertise as a geologist, which he uses in court when he testifies as an expert witness. While Wolter is a limited use public figure, a clever lawyer could try to make a case about private facts or the right to privacy which applies even when material is factually true.
CHV
9/16/2014 09:04:20 am
Agreed. I'm not an attorney, but libel or slander are not feasible complaints if the statements in question are factual (e.g. "John Doe claims he graduated from Yale in 2003, yet Yale has no record of Doe ever having attended the school - much less graduating.")
EP
9/16/2014 09:11:21 am
Privacy rights do not cover public records. Which is what these documents are if you were able to get them in the first place.
CHV
9/16/2014 09:12:51 am
>>>>While I have every confidence that publishing the records is not libelous, someone could in theory argue that the documents contain private facts or that publishing them was designed to cause malicious harm to his reputation.
EP
9/16/2014 09:32:05 am
NYT has journalism protections Jason may not be entitled to (though I'm pretty sure he has other similar protections as a researcher). In any case, Jason worries about "malicious harm" accusations. In a situation like this, while Wolter might find a lawyer stupid enough to make such a claim, the onus would be on the accuser to demonstrate evidence of malicious intent.
CHV
9/16/2014 09:36:31 am
EP - You are right that in the US, "Person X" may file a suit against "Person Y" for almost any infraction (real or imagined). Yet the justice system has a way of weeding out bogus lawsuits with no basis in case law before they ever get to trial.
EP
9/16/2014 10:21:51 am
CHV, I'm sorry you think I need to be informed of such basic facts :) 9/16/2014 10:46:03 am
It's not necessarily the existence of the records that's the problem, but the specific information contained therein. There was a case where someone published a public record (it was a criminal record, I believe) and this included the accused's Social Security number. A court later found that the accused could sue for damages for publishing that public record, even though it was in the public domain, because it contained material that was protected and not widely available to the public. It had nothing to do with libel and everything to do with technicalities.
Jim
9/17/2014 06:43:49 am
This is the problem with our (USA) legal system. The facts that the courts would allow someone to sue another person for damages because they published *public* records that contained *protected* information... Logic would dictate that the responsible entity would be the one who made a record public without redacting the protected information. Once it is a public record you should not be able to claim any portion of its contents is protected, regardless of what the content was.
PNO TECH
9/16/2014 08:43:03 am
YES, EP!
Reply
PNO TECH
9/16/2014 08:53:56 am
Sorry: that should read "...whether, in fact..."
EP
9/16/2014 05:28:39 am
Jason, is there evidence to directly counter this claim by Wolter:
Reply
Clint Knapp
9/16/2014 06:19:07 am
He calls it a sympathy degree in his response to Jason's original posting on the subject, but had been calling it an "honorary Master's degree" on his own resume before that.
Reply
9/16/2014 06:43:13 am
I added a screen shot of the dead link to the post. Archiving! Steve St Clair would be so proud!
CHV
9/16/2014 09:17:23 am
I've never even heard of the concept of a "sympathy" degree being awarded by a college or university.
Reply
EP
9/16/2014 09:24:05 am
That's because it's not a real thing that exists.
Peter N.
9/19/2014 08:12:09 am
I assume a "sympathy degree" is kind of like a "pity f----."
lurkster
9/16/2014 05:53:30 am
The only surprising thing in Wolter’s rant, which I think really shows his naiveté, is the lumping in of 9/11 Truthers. This represents one of the largest market segments and veins of public interest for alternative ideas and fringe theories. If the hardcore Truthers movement and the wide range of offshoots of that camp were to boycott The History Channel network stations, it would put a serious hurting on Wolter's own marketability.
Reply
Clint Knapp
9/16/2014 05:55:28 am
Well, I'm confused. Didn't Wolter himself admit that his "honorary sympathy degree" was a cup of coffee with some whipped cream? That's not a credential in any world but the one in his head. It doesn't matter if it was given to him by his professors. It's not a degree of any sort; it's an anecdote.
Reply
EP
9/16/2014 05:56:58 am
Future events such as these will affect all of us in the future :)
Reply
Jim
9/17/2014 07:08:03 am
The Amazing Criswell knows all!
EP
9/16/2014 06:24:17 am
"the worst offender of bias and miss-information on the Internet is Wikipedia."
Reply
Only Me
9/16/2014 06:59:41 am
"An infuriating and condescending week-long debate ensued among the Wiki reviewers and only after threatening legal action did they finally remove my bio completely."
Reply
Only Me
9/16/2014 07:06:04 am
Part 2:
EP
9/16/2014 07:08:19 am
"I will not have my name or research questioned based on fraudulent research" 9/16/2014 07:33:52 am
This post brings memories.I was labeled as a "bitch,a cunt,a pothead,a moron,a libtard (this one was particularly offensive since I am neither a humanist nor a leftist,but a social Darwinist) etc....Lol.Some simpleton even issued a personal death threat to me.It was such terrifying experience,I became a Valium addict & I am still recovering.
Reply
silverfish
9/18/2014 06:52:53 pm
Ha...good to see you back Tara. You were an early voice of reason.
Reply
Zach
9/19/2014 03:39:55 am
I'm sorry to hear that Tara. The fact that you risked that garbage being thrown at you, for the sake of your own health and safety is a really honorable thing to do. Especially since you didn't have to do it in the first place. If it makes you feel any better, it makes me admire and respect you a lot more than I already had before. :) It makes me feel better that people like Jason and yourself are out there defending academia, science, progress, and reason. Sorry if it sounds like I'm kissing ass the way Wolter's followers do, but I could care less now seeing the lies and misinformation he's putting out now.
Reply
9/22/2014 04:59:17 am
Zach & Silverfish.
Gus
9/26/2014 07:11:28 am
Something ironic about a self-proclaimed social Darwinist blaming others for her becoming a Valium addict.
Reply
EP
9/16/2014 07:54:00 am
I've linked to this before, but I somehow missed the best part...
Reply
666
9/16/2014 08:08:09 am
Quick, quick, quick - let's all zap Scott Wolter
Reply
Kal
9/16/2014 08:22:50 am
Why is it that people like SW and other fringe bloggers desperately cling to, "Oh, now I'm going to sue you for talking smack about me!" It's like 4chan arguments, or Ventrillo rants. First of all, as a public figure on TV, SW hasn't a legal leg to stand on. Hope he has a cane handy. Second, his wikipedia pages are not notable to be on wikipedia. He's on a TV show and that's it.
Reply
Kal
9/16/2014 08:26:54 am
PS. No court in the land would take the case. The judge would go, oh that guy! Case dismissed. Crack of gavel hitting desk...
Reply
Matt Mc
9/16/2014 08:28:20 am
I disagree about the P.T. Barnum statement, I do not think he would be like Wolter at all, he would milk all the controversy for all he could and use it to his advantage. P.T. Barnum was a showman and business man and really seems to have been way intellectually superior than Wolter is. I mean do you really believe that Barnum believed what he sold, or he sold it because he could make someone believe in it. He knew it was all a gaff and that people love to be taken in by gaffs.
Reply
CHV
9/16/2014 08:39:57 am
Someday, someone should inform Scott Wolter that if he chooses to sue someone that those parties may opt to countersue.
Reply
BillUSA
9/16/2014 08:57:08 am
Jason, That's the other edge of the sword in dealing with mythologist's. The are so busy distorting the truth they don't know how to shut it off - so to say. I mean it's ironic that he is accusing YOU of making things up while trying make a (dubious, in my opinion) name for himself.
Reply
RLewis
9/16/2014 09:06:08 am
I would think someone with his extensive background (in geology) could apply to the UofM and easily obtain an actual Masters degree in a few months. Problem solved.
Reply
EP
9/16/2014 10:57:02 am
It's as though you haven't seen him practice geology on his show or read any of his published "research"... :)
Reply
Clint Knapp
9/16/2014 04:54:39 pm
While technically that might be possible, one must also consider that Wolter has built much of his reputation on rebuffing the academic mainstream and accusing the ominous "They" of hiding the truth from the poor, underprivileged common man.
Reply
EP
9/16/2014 04:59:15 pm
You really should read the comments on Wolters blog if you haven't already. It's where he lets it all hang out when it comes to his opinion of the academia and how scientific research really ought to be conducted. Definitely worth a read.
Clint Knapp
9/16/2014 05:10:56 pm
I have in the past, but didn't have time to do so before leaving for work today. It's but one of many things I intend to waste a little time on tonight!
EP
9/16/2014 05:29:35 pm
Also, I didn't know this about Wolter:
Clint Knapp
9/16/2014 05:55:17 pm
Well, that was a depressing few minutes. I took a little time to read Wolter's reply thread with Anonymous on the Peer Review article... and it was pretty much as I expected having read some of his earlier posts and their comments.
EP
9/16/2014 05:58:21 pm
Did you read the part where Wolter apparently confuses Native Americans and Freemasons?
Clint Knapp
9/16/2014 06:09:15 pm
Sadly, it is. In Wolter's mind, anyway. Akhenaten and the Founding Fathers makes the claim that the Knights Templar branch of Freemasonry derives its initiatory rites directly from the Medi'win initiation rites:
Clint Knapp
9/16/2014 06:12:22 pm
Should read: Akhenaten to the Founding Fathers.
EP
9/16/2014 06:24:50 pm
Oh, right. How stupid of me.
Cathleen Anderson
9/16/2014 10:04:45 am
I can't find the actual opinion online, just a listing of the case history.
Reply
9/16/2014 10:47:23 am
It's not online. I had to order it from the court. It costs about $16 and takes 2 weeks or so to process.
Reply
EP
9/16/2014 12:01:00 pm
Wolter's blog really deserves a lot more attention from Jason-and-his-keyboard and Jason's acolytes.
Reply
Matt Mc
9/16/2014 12:35:16 pm
Also I guess it should be noted that in his response to Jason clearing up the the mystery of the coffee cup degree back in January 2013 Wolter says
Reply
Walt
9/17/2014 03:59:21 am
Matt, I could be wrong, but I think Wolter still believes he has an honorary Masters. He's not conceding that it's "incorrect information", even though it's unofficial and removed from his bio. That's the impression I get anyway. He didn't remove it from his resume because he doesn't have it. He did so just so his professors wouldn't have to answer for the "unofficialness" of it.
Reply
Matt Mc
9/17/2014 04:40:16 am
You have a point Walt, he could and perhaps does believe in the legitimacy of the Honorary or sympathetic Masters as a real thing. And you are quite right that he does indicate that he removed it so his mentors did not have to answer about it.
Walt
9/17/2014 05:39:39 am
His beef with Jason is that Jason was "intimating that [Wolter] was falsely claiming" to have received an honorable Masters.
EP
9/17/2014 05:45:49 am
Walter is claiming he never claimed it was anything other than a "sympathy" degree. But since that isn't a thing, he in effect claimed it every time he omitted to mention what it really is. Which is every time before getting caught.
Only Me
9/17/2014 06:02:35 am
Walt, I agree that Wolter *believes* he has an honorary degree, but the way it was given means he doesn't actually hold one.
Walt
9/17/2014 06:07:04 am
He's still claiming it was an Honorary Masters degree. It's in the caption under the picture in the blog entry. The reason he believes it was given isn't really relevant to me.
Walt
9/17/2014 06:14:56 am
Yeah, Only Me, Wolter seems to be the only one who doesn't recognize that an honorary masters is a real, official thing given by a school. He somehow thinks that he holds an unofficial honorary masters.
EP
9/17/2014 06:20:16 am
@ Only Me
Walt
9/17/2014 06:35:26 am
EP, I think you're giving him too much credit. I think he just didn't have a clue that an honorary degree was a real thing until Jason brought it up. Now he's trying to backpedal without backpedaling.
EP
9/17/2014 06:46:24 am
You know, Wolter would have been asked about this degree many times over the 25+ years of him claiming it. Suppose he responded with the truth. Surely someone he trusts would have explained to him why he's misrepresenting himself. Yet Wolter continued to do so until his misrepresentation became a public issue.
Walt
9/17/2014 07:44:38 am
Well, there's been no evidence posted that indicates he doesn't have the honorary degree in his possession as he claims, or that he ever believed it wasn't a real honorary degree, so I'm not going to cast aspersions without reason.
Matt Mc
9/19/2014 06:08:28 am
I really hope he does not still have the cup of coffee honorary degree in fact it most likely has evaporated and become some weird crust like concrete that perhaps could serve as some sort of geological experiment.
EP
9/19/2014 06:33:37 am
The nutrients from Scott Wolter's honorary degree have long since become part of Wolter himself. And, through circulation of organic matter in the ecosystem, part of us all.
Zach
9/19/2014 06:53:40 am
Wolter must be even more lazier in his lies cause even I was able to find his post. Obviously anybody who isn't lazy and ignorant would find Scott Wolter's post which he did on January 22, 2013 at 6:49 pm. Since the crazy batshit has already hit the fan in the comments, don't see why I shouldn't post what Wolter has already backtracked against what he posted a year ago:
EP
9/17/2014 07:48:37 am
Walt said: "Well, there's been no evidence posted that indicates he doesn't have the honorary degree in his possession as he claims, or that he ever believed it wasn't a real honorary degree, so I'm not going to cast aspersions without reason."
Reply
Walt
9/17/2014 07:52:21 am
Did I miss some important evidence?
EP
9/17/2014 07:55:19 am
All of it, it seems. Either that, or this is your best ostrich impersonation.
Walt
9/17/2014 08:06:09 am
Jason indicated that Wolter was never given an honorary degree by a university, and Wolter indicated he was given an "unofficial" honorary degree by his professors. That's all we have as far as I know.
Joe
9/17/2014 12:12:37 pm
Walt,
S
9/22/2014 05:19:10 pm
Universities do actually give honorary degrees. This is an official action and is recorded by the university. You can find very easily who has received an honorary degree from an institution and when. Wolter has not. This is not up for debate or discussion. It's a fact, a matter of record. Either he is incompetent for not knowing what an honorary degree is or is a fraud for allowing his credentials to be misrepresented for personal gain.
Harris
9/16/2014 12:49:58 pm
I find it very interesting how many parallels there are between Scott Wolter and Hjalmar Holand, the amateur historian who really "rescued" the runestone for the first time in the 1920s and kept to it until the '60s; they each claim never to have heard of the stone before making it their focus of obsession, they each brought it from relative obscurity to being discussed in mainstream media as "local color," they each were known for major self promotion and public debates, and each spent a lot of time lecturing to laypeople while decrying "academics." Also, an odd focus on "disproving the myth of Columbus," when L'Anse aux Meadows was discovered before Holand's death and the academy has dropped much of the significance of Columbus decades ago.
Reply
Matt Mc
9/16/2014 01:51:05 pm
I guess it is their ego, they have some great need to feel significant and think that for some reason "they" can provide so evidence that will forever change history. Not that it would at all but the need to be and feel significant leads them to think that it will and is also why they can be the only person is right.
Reply
Kal
9/16/2014 02:32:19 pm
How much ya wanna wager Dustie is actually Scott making it sound like he has a fan? Nah, I won't bet, but there is that possibility.
Reply
EP
9/16/2014 03:00:43 pm
Wolter is nowhere near good enough a writer to pull off Dustie as a self-serving fiction.
Reply
Sticker
9/16/2014 03:29:51 pm
Holy mackerel, SW really does appear on the list of speakers for that "Authentic History" conference advertised on Stormfront (an infamous white supremacist site). I imagine they must be pleased by his show's attribution of every notable ancient site/achievement of pre-Columbian America to mysterious white travelers ...
Reply
EP
9/16/2014 03:49:55 pm
Why else do you think The Barnes Review advertises Wolter's involvement in that conference to this day?
Reply
Sticker
9/20/2014 05:01:29 pm
LOL, sorry --- it was just so perfect and insane that I couldn't believe my own eyes!
EP
9/16/2014 03:47:44 pm
More touching words from Wolter's fans:
Reply
Rev. Phil Gotsch
9/16/2014 04:01:43 pm
Well … Again …
Reply
EP
9/16/2014 04:11:54 pm
Serious question: How do you reconcile all this with what you claim Wolter is really like?
Reply
Rev. Phil Gotsch
9/16/2014 04:24:34 pm
Please reference … "all this" … ??? Do you mean the snarky *fluff*stuff (above) … ???
EP
9/16/2014 04:28:21 pm
Do you believe an essentially honest person would have described (on his resume and elsewhere) the "sympathy" he receieved from his old professors as an honorary degree from a university, then claim that he always described it as "sympathy", etc. even though he never did so in any public context until its nonexistence was pointed out?
EP
9/16/2014 04:29:51 pm
Also, how do you explain his participation in a Barnes Review conference? (Assuming he thinks Holocaust denial is bad...)
Rev. Phil Gotsch
9/16/2014 04:33:30 pm
*sigh*
Rev. Phil Gotsch
9/16/2014 04:36:15 pm
Look … I have a geologist friend in Teheran … That doesn't mean that I "deny the Holocaust" just because the (crazy) former President of Iran "denies the Holocaust" ...
EP
9/16/2014 04:36:57 pm
Nobody is confused about that. But he doesn't have an honorary degree, in spite of his claims that he does. And *no one* confuses sympathy with honorary degrees, so there is no explanation for how an honest person could make the claims he made.
EP
9/16/2014 04:37:52 pm
But would you participate in a conference organized by Holocaust deniers with participation by Holocaust deniers?
Joe
9/16/2014 06:37:24 pm
I am sorry Rev. but I have to call BS when I see it. First off, Wolter is the one who resurrected this argument from over a year ago. He brought it up in his most resent blog. Jason is just responding to the accusation. Also honorary degrees are given by institutions and recognized by that institution as such. Your "honest" friend claims that he was given a sympathy degree by college professors in the form of a coffee cup? But proceeded to list this fictional degree on his resume for several years. Please try to explain how this was an honest mistake. Would you ever claim a honorary or earned degree because you were complimented by college faculty? You have know the man as a friend and personal colleague for over 2 decades. How can you defend his most recent blog posting in response to a post from Jason way back in Jan of 2013? It appears to me that he is attempting to drum up attention for his upcoming season of AU. Unless you think his most recent post adds anything to his argument from back in 2013?
Rev. Phil Gotsch
9/16/2014 04:26:51 pm
Nope …
EP
9/16/2014 04:39:35 pm
Your pathetic trolling does nothing to hide the fact that you have nothing to say.
Rev. Phil Gotsch
9/16/2014 04:51:35 pm
LOL …
EP
9/16/2014 04:54:32 pm
I mean the Jim Carrey comment, but in any case... Look, I believe that you are telling us the truth about your opinion of Wolter. However, in light of everything we've seen you are accomplishing nothing but making yourself look like a terrible judge of character (Wolter's in this case).
EP
9/16/2014 04:55:35 pm
*flailing
Rev. Phil Gotsch
9/16/2014 04:57:06 pm
"flaining" … ???
EP
9/16/2014 05:00:27 pm
Once you get a grip, observe that I noticed my own typo right away and stop deflecting. You're really bad at it.
Mike Morgan
9/16/2014 09:50:38 pm
"essentially honest" Hmmm. I guess a person could be considered "essentially honest" as long as they are honest an infinitesimal fraction point above 50% of the time?
Mark L
9/16/2014 10:13:59 pm
Phil, what do you think of your friend Scott appearing at a conference which has the approval of numerous white supremacist organisations? Would you do it?
Matt Mc
9/17/2014 01:44:53 am
Rev also confuses public with personal.
J.A Dickey
9/17/2014 02:35:04 am
I am willing to take Reverend Phil Gotsch's word on a personal
EP
9/17/2014 06:24:49 am
It's not "guilt by association"! Stop parroting Rev's lame deflection tactics. It's willingness to associate with these people in spite of knowing what they are (presumably, for the sake of publicizing one's work). Meaning, either that Wolter doesn't think it's a big deal, or, more plausibly, that he doesn't care.
scot
9/16/2014 07:38:47 pm
Nice try Rev, but that dog won't hunt. Your friend is a liar, and quite frankly a pathetic liar. A sympathy Degree? really? And you try to twist it around to an honorary Degree, no wonder the two of you are friends, you both show a certain disdain for honesty.
Reply
psCargile
9/17/2014 02:23:24 am
Essentially, as in absolutely necessary, indispensable, incapable of being disregarded or neglected, the very essence of honesty..that kind of essential?
Reply
EP
9/16/2014 05:38:37 pm
The good Reverend ran away with his tail between his legs after what is probably his lamest effort yet at white-knighting for Wolter.
Reply
J.A Dickey
9/17/2014 02:15:05 am
The Reverend has said nothing new on the topic that was not
Reply
EP
9/17/2014 05:42:03 am
You completely missed the point of what I said. But at least you're not making death threats, so I guess baby steps.
J.A Dickey
9/17/2014 06:28:37 am
I'm assuming you just indulged an impulse to quarrel with
Rev. Phil Gotsch
9/17/2014 11:17:08 am
Well … again … and again …
Reply
EP
9/17/2014 11:25:21 am
No one here is accusing Wolter of being a Neo-Nazi or a White Supremacist. Only of not caring that he associates with them. Stop deflating, you're still terrible at it.
Rev. Phil Gotsch
9/17/2014 01:12:32 pm
LOL …
Joe
9/17/2014 01:22:37 pm
But Rev. you are here to defend Scott on an argument that HE resurrected. Jason has not brought up the non masters degree since the blog back in January of 2013.
Rev/ Phil Gotsch
9/17/2014 01:27:59 pm
The anti-Wolter shark*feeding*frenzy is interesting, isn't it … ???
Joe
9/17/2014 01:36:50 pm
I am more curious that whenever anyone wants to talk about the actual subject you just response with absolutely nothing of a response.
Rev. Phil Gotsch
9/17/2014 01:50:41 pm
Obviously (as he himself has clearly indicated) … his frustration is the fact that the anti-Wolter blog*crap has essentially hijacked the Google search engine results ...
EP
9/17/2014 01:55:49 pm
If only Wolter's friends didn't post so much in the "anti-Wolter" threads...
Only Me
9/17/2014 01:58:35 pm
Sounds to me like *Scott* is responsible for the failure of HIS crap not hijacking the Google search engine results.
EP
9/17/2014 02:01:09 pm
INFORMATION HYJACKING!!!
Joe
9/17/2014 02:26:27 pm
So this is more of Wolter shouting on the soap box on internet injustices that are tossed upon him? 9/17/2014 02:26:53 pm
My blog post would never have become the top Google result if (a) Wolter had a web strategy and a developed web presence and (b) Phil didn't post so many times in the comments, generating hundreds of references to Wolter and increasing its relevance to Google's algorithms. In other words, it's nothing I did and certainly no different than my blog posts about Sean David Morton's fake PhD, Robert Temple's alleged professorships, etc. I'm as surprised as anyone that this one blog post became such a big deal, or that Wolter considers it part of a "myth" I've invented about him since I've almost never mentioned it since January 2013.
EP
9/17/2014 02:34:56 pm
Wolter has serious problems with accepting responsibility for the consequences of his behavior.
Rev. Phil Gotsch
9/17/2014 02:50:09 pm
But, then …
EP
9/17/2014 02:55:48 pm
You are the only one to speak of "calling off the dogs" here.
Rev. Phil Gotsch
9/17/2014 03:11:55 pm
Curiouser and Curiouser (NOT "Attorneys at Law")
S
9/23/2014 08:26:53 am
He's not an honest guy. That much he's made clear as a public figure. You don't want to admit it because what would that say about you having associated with him for so long? It's done. He's long since been exposed as a fraud and you can't change that. Defending him out of misplaced loyalty only calls your integrity into question. You should think about that. People need to take responsibility for their own actions. He refuses to and you can't absolve him if that responsibility. You're clearly a loyal friend but that doesn't change that what he did was dishonest.
PNO TECH
9/17/2014 01:25:29 am
Maybe SW is trying to push his blog's visit count up. I visit here in large part because Jason posts links to source. I'd bet many fellow readers do as well.
Reply
The original post has 1300+ comments and the word
Reply
J.A Dickey
9/17/2014 02:01:26 am
Thanks to Jason's efforts and research, I've encountered
Reply
EP
9/17/2014 06:29:43 am
"the fringe authors you write about simply do not have any meaningful nor consistent web strategy."
Reply
Cathleen Anderson
9/19/2014 05:03:51 pm
He keeps it going too. Which is going to keep it at the top.
Reply
Andrew
9/17/2014 04:53:48 am
I would argue that this is really a storm in a teacup. I don't know why Scott Wolter would choose to resurrect this issue on his blog nor why it has to come to this kind of personal/legal wrangling. At the end of the day Scott Wolter's ideas/theories need to be examined as objectively as possible in the cold hard light of archaeological, scientific and historical facts.
Reply
Only Me
9/17/2014 05:40:19 am
Indeed, it has. Consider the wisdom of Wolter's own "personal friend and professional colleague for 25+ years", Rev. Phil Gotsch:
Reply
lurkster
9/17/2014 06:50:21 am
I agree it is akin to a storm in a tea cup. And I'm even willing to give Wolter the benefit of the doubt on his act of resurrecting this dead horse due to missing (or being misled to believe) that his comment on Jason's original post was NOT removed. That plus a Google search on his name revealing that "Scott Wolter's Apparently Non-Existent Degree - Jason Colavito" is the number 1 result would of been reason enough to incite his recent rant.
Reply
spookyparadigm
9/17/2014 08:05:19 am
There are some "alternative researchers" who do not mostly do what they do to grind an anti-authority axe.
EP
9/17/2014 08:56:38 am
In my experience, most of the time anti-authority agitation is posterior to rejection by the authorities. (I'm discounting outright frauds.)
Rev. Phil Gotsch
9/17/2014 12:40:02 pm
As already noted in previous discussions of these questions, for a few decades the irrationally sacrosanct "Clovis First" dogma prevented older dated sites being taken as seriously as should have been the case … Funding was *ahem* denied or otherwise blocked …
Only Me
9/17/2014 01:34:38 pm
Here we go AGAIN with another round of the "Clovis first" myth Rev. Revisionist insists on regurgitating. In other words, more lying, which is apropos for the discussion.
EP
9/17/2014 01:38:56 pm
Reverend, if it'll make you feel better, I can offer you a free "sympathy" honorary Masters.
Rev. Phil Gotsch
9/17/2014 01:48:09 pm
You're not familiar with the (now mostly abandoned) *Clovis*First* dogma … ???
Only Me
9/17/2014 01:55:27 pm
Don't know who you're asking, Phil, but I'll respond anyway. As a "SERIOUS student of history", you have failed to get one fact correct. I proved beyond doubt in another thread that your "Clovis first" myth was just that, a myth, and destroyed your every argument to the contrary. BUT, just like Scott, you're convinced you can never be wrong.
spookyparadigm
9/17/2014 03:01:28 pm
Luckily Dillehay was able to turn to the History Channel to fund his research at Monte Verde because of the black list. But it killed his career as a result because of the anti-pre-Clovis dogma.
EP
9/17/2014 03:06:09 pm
In general, academics are a lot less scared of change than of ending up as a metaphorical dinosaur stuck in the past.
EP
9/17/2014 06:18:20 am
This is not directly on-topic, but I have a humble request for Jason.
Reply
Clint Knapp
9/17/2014 12:50:40 pm
Technically speaking, it's possible Wolter's lingo is just wildly out of date. The term "hacker" didn't used to mean the anti-social kids breaking into things, but simply meant anyone who wrote code.
Reply
EP
9/17/2014 01:36:56 pm
Billboards offering discount airplane tickets and discreet adult dating.
Rev. Phil Gotsch
9/17/2014 01:46:18 pm
*combined* … better yet …
EP
9/17/2014 01:59:59 pm
So do you and Wolter hang out as friends? What kind of things do you like to do? Ever played football with him?
Rev. Phil Gotsch
9/18/2014 05:52:26 am
LOL …
EP
9/18/2014 06:29:25 am
So do you two ever hang out as friends?
Gunn
9/17/2014 06:33:04 am
Freaks, may I wax honorific?
Reply
Only Me
9/17/2014 07:48:26 am
You missed the point, Gunn.
Reply
EP
9/17/2014 07:52:58 am
Only Me, I hereby bestow an honorary degree of Master of Sciences upon you. May you walk in glory!
Only Me MS,(honorary)
9/17/2014 08:15:12 am
I....I....I don't know what to say!
Joe
9/17/2014 11:15:24 am
I am sure Gunn is a nice guy and all, but isn't missing the point a common theme in Gunn's posts?
Gunn
9/17/2014 02:37:10 pm
I haven't missed the point. It's an ongoing tit-for-tat, like the Hatfields and McCoys, but on an individual basis. Jason, above, said, "Mr. Wolter has directly attacked my honesty, my integrity, and my basic human decency." Now we see the point, don't we? The point is that Wolter could probably say the exact same thing about his perceived aggressor. Watch closely now, for experimental purposes: Wolter..."Mr. Colavito has directly attacked my honesty, my integrity, and my basic human decency."
EP
9/17/2014 02:46:10 pm
"So, perhaps we can now try to brighten the corner where we are here, rather than continue to revel in this "sublime" pettiness."
Rev. Phil Gotsch
9/17/2014 02:47:24 pm
"Gunn" --
Only Me
9/17/2014 03:00:11 pm
@Gunn
EP
9/17/2014 03:02:23 pm
In other words, everyone but Scott Wolter is to blame. Always.
Gunn
9/17/2014 03:05:05 pm
I'll try to think of something pertinent, on subject, while on my evening stroll, as we are so gently reminded that "The past is never dead, it's not even past." - Wm Faulkner
Gunn
9/17/2014 03:12:00 pm
Only Me, pay attention please. Let's not get needlessly exasperated or mean-spirited. There doesn't need to be a "faceless conspiratorial authority" for Wolter to be legitimately offended. All it takes is Jason-and-his-keyboard, for lack of a better description. Don't feel so dejected by this simple bottom line, Only Me. Now onto my very important stroll....
EP
9/17/2014 03:16:43 pm
Can't spell 'stroll' without 'troll'... Just sayin'... :)
Only Me
9/17/2014 03:23:39 pm
Gunn, I'm trying to inform you that Scott is offended by EVERY INDIVIDUAL that has ever disagreed with his ideology. We've seen it firsthand on several episodes of AU, we read about it in his blog posts, we hear about it in his radio interviews and podcasts. That's all it takes...disagreement.
Rev. Phil Gotsch
9/17/2014 03:33:45 pm
LOL …
EP
9/17/2014 03:38:33 pm
Could you tell us a bit more about the nature of your "experience" and "familiarity" with Wolter? I asked you above if you ever played ball with him, but anything at all would do...
Only Me
9/17/2014 04:11:10 pm
Stop being a wise ass, Phil. You wanted to discuss "ideas and claims and thoughts and possibilities". Those are the things you aren't familiar or have experience with.
Gunn
9/17/2014 05:24:14 pm
I think that stroll did me some good, especially after taking a fine afternoon nap...though a bit short. Yes, well, I thought it over and here's a poem I wrote about ten years ago, EP. Please don't mistake taking the narrator as myself, as I would not purposely lead anyone astray. But this does show a bit of why I occasionally tend to come to the aid of the underdog--here on this blog currently Mr. Scott Wolter. However, we may see that Jason is not far away from being a future underdog, either. Perhaps I'll come to his aid some day when he is an underdog...like when the KRS is fully authenticated by peer review and certain individuals might want to attack Mr. Colavito for his earlier (but now criticized) hidebound and short-sighted views. EP, I hope this poem satisfies your desire to be entertained by my past poetry...and I think it's actually on subject. We are talking about underdogs and perceived underdogs here, right?
EP
9/17/2014 05:43:45 pm
It's hard for me to mock your poetry. Don't get me wrong, it's mediocre at best and usually much worse than mediocre. But you had some potential, however limited by your generally rather limited intelligence.
Rev. Phil Gotsch
9/18/2014 01:04:53 am
Vigorous discussion/hashing of ideas and claims: yes …
Joe
9/18/2014 01:19:12 am
Gunn,
Clint Knapp
9/18/2014 02:01:43 am
They never really do, Joe. Phil's just repeating himself because he still can't recognize the difference between uncovering the truth of a claim (note the word, Phil) to holding an honorary Master's Degree and making a personal attack (something his Close Friend and Professional Colleague actually has done, including outright libel). He apparently can't recognize the difference between "secret damaging information" and publicly-available court records either.
EP
9/18/2014 05:08:39 am
Also, I don't understand what's "vague" about any of this. Jason explicitly said that he intends to release these records, once he makes sure it doesn't expose him to legal action. (If Wolter feels "threatened" by it, okay - but then he shouldn't have been such a naughty boy throughout his life).
Rev. Phil Gotsch
9/18/2014 05:26:06 am
Sen. Joe "Tail Gunner" McCarthy had his "List of Communists," too …
Joe
9/18/2014 06:27:37 am
Well that was a ridiculous response that doesn't address the conversation at all. For one I never mentioned having a list at all, second are you comparing Jason to Joe McCarthy? 9/18/2014 06:33:34 am
I'm sorry, but me reminding Wolter that he is standing in a glass house is somehow McCarthyism? And listing the case number is a "vague threat" but saying that one is, for example, planning legal action for unspecified "future events" is not? Phil, would you like to look up the case in question? As I understand it, you were his friend at the time, so you must know what the case was about. Do you condone his behavior, or are you calling the judgment against him into question?
Gunn
9/18/2014 08:32:48 am
EP, I underestimated your crudeness, and I was wrong for earlier calling you a dumb ass. That makes no sense. "Braying ass" is much better. You have the audacity to openly question my intelligence and declare my invention stupid, yet on the flip-side, I have won cash money for my poetry, and my unique new turbine is receiving serious attention towards commercialization from a real university. I don't care whether you believe this or not, because your opinions don't matter to me--because you are such a braying ass. EP, you are a classic trouble-maker here, joined by a few others whom Jason would have earlier deleted comments from, for unnecessary rudeness.
EP
9/18/2014 08:47:46 am
"You have the audacity to openly question my intelligence"
Only Me
9/18/2014 11:18:32 am
"Anyway, you helped me to clarify my decision to finally abandon this sorry blog."
Cathleen Anderson
9/20/2014 03:56:05 pm
You always bring it back to the Kensington Runestone. That may or may not be a hoax, but Scott Wolter sure has made it a lot harder to prove with the contaminmation from having that mold made.
Reply
William M Smith
9/21/2014 07:23:40 am
Cathleen - You are on target about the KRS. The academics at the University of Minn. that gave Scott Wolter a so called degree stated they were finished in researching the KRS until new technology was available to overcome the surface contamination of the stone when Mr. Wolter failed to use proper mold release.
RLewis
9/17/2014 09:17:27 am
"In my view, the worst offender of bias and miss-information on the Internet is Wikipedia. This on-line resource that so many people in the world rely upon simply cannot be trusted; especially when it comes to topics about archaeology and the controversial artifacts I had researched extensively..."
Reply
EP
9/17/2014 09:40:28 am
OMG nice one!!!
Reply
Cathleen Anderson
9/17/2014 03:06:50 pm
Wikipedia is not a reliable source for siting anything, it all needs to be double checked. It is a good place to look for reliable sources on lots of things though.
Reply
EP
9/17/2014 03:10:56 pm
I agree with you 100%. I wouldn't even blame Wolter for using Wikipedia in his research if he used it as a starting point. It is not the thing to be citing in one's book, however, if only because it gets changed all the time. Also, it makes one look ridiculous to cite it in one's book, like Scott Wolter does, only to turn around and complain about Wikipedia being a cesspool of "bias and miss-information". Like Scott Wolter does.
Steve_in_SoDak
9/17/2014 02:47:32 pm
I tried to post on Scott's blog post, but apparently all comments need to run through filters before they are posted, so my post went into the nether regions of the blogosphere with the inevitable end of file 13. doesn't only posting comments that are favorable to your point of view constitute exactly what Scott Wolter accuses the Smithsonian of doing? I love hipocricy, especially in my fringe history nuts.
Reply
EP
9/17/2014 02:50:34 pm
To be fair to Wolter, he does generally allow highly critical posts, and sometimes it takes him a while to get to moderation.
Reply
EP
9/18/2014 12:32:33 pm
Perhaps you're one of these two "skeptics" whose posts Wolter did not approve:
Reply
9/18/2014 01:02:17 pm
I don't have the technical capability to restore deleted posts, much less backdate new posts to 2013. That fact can be easily confirmed with Weebly's software, which is and remains crappy. Wolter almost certainly tried doing a keyword search on the thread and then stopped after the first response, which seemed to be a reply to his original response, not realizing that due to the sheer volume of comments and number of threads, they aren't in strict chronological order anymore. The post remains where it has been since 2013.
EP
9/18/2014 01:17:53 pm
Speaking of technical capabilities, did you know that Scott Wolter has dabbled in the Crystal Skull game as well?
Clint Knapp
9/18/2014 05:31:31 pm
For the record; the first one was me. I don't have the exact text anymore, but I first informed him that Honorary Degrees are real thing with real procedures for awarding, then informed him he was lying to his readership by saying his response was deleted. I provided, without bias or comment, a single link in parentheses to the article in question.
EP
9/18/2014 05:52:24 pm
Scott Wolter's been extremely generous in general when it comes to giving to the Internet.
Mike Morgan
9/18/2014 07:05:59 am
Gentlemen,
Reply
Fr. Jack Ashcraft
9/18/2014 07:20:57 am
Rev. Gotsch,
Reply
Rev. Phil Gotsch
9/18/2014 09:41:24 am
The "McCarthy" gambit is:
Reply
Fr. Jack Ashcraft
9/18/2014 10:18:28 am
I fail to see how that equates. However, Mr. Wolter's behavior does indeed equate.
Rev. Phil Gotsch
9/18/2014 09:28:51 am
Again …
Reply
EP
9/18/2014 09:33:34 am
Priest fight!!! :D
Reply
Fr. Jack Ashcraft
9/18/2014 09:46:49 am
Rev.Gotsch,
Reply
Rev. Phil Gotsch
9/18/2014 09:56:59 am
In my own background (in the "Lutheran" reform movement), the late Rev. Fr. Prof. Dr. Martin Luther (1487-1546) is/was infamous for his invective, his spleen-venting, his use of, shall we say, remarkably shamefully *colorfully*harsh*language* against his critics and detractors …
Reply
EP
9/18/2014 10:01:13 am
Rev., I thought you were a Catholic:
EP
9/18/2014 10:08:18 am
"REVEREND sorta hints at a Protestant understanding"
Fr. Jack Ashcraft
9/18/2014 10:17:02 am
Rev. Gotsch,
Rev. Phil Gotsch
9/18/2014 10:20:12 am
My mention of Luther was simply to illustrate the historic fact that while harshly trashing others is neither new nor rare, it is none the less NOT legitimate ...
Rev. Phil Gotsch
9/18/2014 10:42:31 am
… and again …
Only Me
9/18/2014 11:26:02 am
"I know him to be an honest person"
EP
9/18/2014 11:38:34 am
@ Only Me
Rev. Phil Gotsch
9/18/2014 12:26:06 pm
LOL …
Only Me
9/18/2014 02:12:10 pm
"In my personal and professional experience"
Clint Knapp
9/18/2014 05:59:15 pm
Phil,
EP
9/18/2014 10:59:33 am
Speaking of Scott Wolter's character, what happened to him refusing to share profits with his coauthor Richard Nielsen and claiming that he holds sole copyright of their joint work?
Reply
Rev. Phil Gotsch
9/18/2014 12:28:00 pm
Those are questions for lawyers to settle, yes … ???
Reply
EP
9/18/2014 12:34:56 pm
Of course. I just want to know what happened to this dispute. Whether Scott Wolter tried to steal his coauthor's earnings and lied about owning their joint work and all...
Rev. Phil Gotsch
9/18/2014 12:45:42 pm
So … ???
EP
9/18/2014 12:51:15 pm
So - perhaps someone knows and will tell us.
Rev. Phil Gotsch
9/18/2014 02:32:41 pm
I met Dick Nielsen once, perhaps twice …
EP
9/18/2014 11:17:31 am
Speaking of Scott Wolter's professional competence (AND character), here is what Paul Weiblen, Professor Emeritus of Geology at the University of Minnessota, says in his report to the KRS Museum:
Reply
Rev. Phil Gotsch
9/18/2014 12:30:31 pm
When the Apollo crews brought rocks back from the Moon, they were immediately kept in pure nitrogen in sealed containers …
Reply
EP
9/18/2014 12:36:51 pm
Clearly modern molding residue is not Wolter's responsibility. No Sir! :)
Cathleen Anderson
9/21/2014 06:19:57 am
I noticed that Rev. Gotsch did not actually respond to the comment. His reference to moon rocks was completely irrelevant to what Scott Wolter had done to the Kensington Runestone. This is appalling.
Reply
EP
9/21/2014 06:23:14 am
Rev. Phil Gotsch should take his own advice concerning words:
Joe
9/18/2014 01:47:11 pm
I know that I am sounding like a broken record but I do find Rev. Phil's approach to this blog to be entirely dishonest. He is constantly preaching about keeping it on topic and not personal. But whenever someone tries to have a conversation about the topic he doesn't respond.
Reply
EP
9/18/2014 01:55:37 pm
Thanks to the Reverend's tireless championing of Scott Wolter, top two Google hits for "Scott Wolter professional experience" are Jason's blog posts.
Reply
Rev. Phil Gotsch
9/18/2014 02:30:57 pm
I am Scott Wolter's personal friend and professional colleague …
Reply
Only Me
9/18/2014 02:39:52 pm
Then stop acting as if you are.
EP
9/18/2014 02:45:02 pm
@ Only Me
Only Me
9/18/2014 03:01:04 pm
Three observations:
Joe
9/18/2014 03:41:23 pm
No one is saying that you are, however whenever anyone is critical to Mr. Wolter's ideas and comments you start crying personal attack. So it is quite obvious that you do not understand how someone can be critical of a persons work and not be it a personal attack. Also it seems fairly obvious due to your lack of defending his actual work that you do not believe in any of the crap that Scott Wolter is shoveling.
CHV
9/19/2014 04:54:06 pm
>>>>I am Scott Wolter's personal friend and professional colleague …
Rev. Phil Gotsch
9/19/2014 02:41:25 am
Joe --
Reply
Matt Mc
9/19/2014 02:48:38 am
Like I said a a mindless Parrot. See more Parroting.
EP
9/18/2014 03:47:20 pm
Scott Wolter just explained why he keeps using the outdated and misleading expression "Columbus Myth":
Reply
Joe
9/18/2014 03:56:32 pm
I was the person who asked about the Columbus Myth and am not surprised by the lack of actual response. Again the man is not a honest or ethical person and actually tries to spin a lie that he acknowledges he is using for effect and not true at all.
Reply
Only Me
9/18/2014 03:57:15 pm
I didn't realize my refusal to accept at face value every bullshit artist's version of reality had such profound impact on our current understanding of history. I never knew I was culpable in the dismissal of hare-brained ideas that attempt to revise establish facts in favor of a particular ideology.
Reply
EP
9/18/2014 04:01:15 pm
Admit it, you are one of the Smithsonian Nabisco Wikipedia Truther hackers, aren't you? :)
Only Me
9/18/2014 04:19:22 pm
N-No!
Rev. Phil Gotsch
9/18/2014 04:33:00 pm
"Clovis First" … !!! …
Only Me
9/18/2014 04:49:14 pm
Semper quidem collocantur, Phil.
EP
9/18/2014 04:55:25 pm
Reverend, do you really want to make Nazi allusions in light of your friend's Scott Wolter's unfortunate history of associating with them?
Joe
9/18/2014 05:31:10 pm
I think our friend the Rev. has turned into the new (*) or 666 with basically non sensical responses
Matt Mc
9/19/2014 01:58:00 am
Nah Rev has been around longer than 666 and is much more repetitive and less creative (I cannot believe I am saying the 666 is creative at all).
Matt Mc
9/19/2014 01:55:53 am
Wolter is quite right however about the controversy is good for ratings.
Reply
Harris
9/19/2014 02:57:32 am
Yes, this "Columbus Myth" thing continues to be a major part of the runestone narrative among laypeople, almost as much as the popular idea of "Vikings"- both in the recent Fringe Festival play, popular fictional accounts of the runestone from the '50s on I have consulted, and even several National History Day projects (exhibits and presentations researched by grade school children for a national contest) I have judged, have stressed this "everything you know is wrong," Columbus was not the first European in America theme, with the Kensington Runestone as the major proof- nary a mention of L'anse aux Meadows. Is it because L’anse aux Meadows is in Canada and so doesn't count? Is it because the general public are so out of date when it comes to historical concepts that the idea that Columbus is wrong still blows their minds? I remember watching PBS shows critiquing the Columbus narrative and discussing Viking voyages as a kid twenty years ago.
Reply
Rev. Phil Gotsch
9/19/2014 03:06:22 am
Of course these days every school kid learns about Leif Erikson, at least in passing, with maybe a slight quick passing nod to L'Anse aux Meadows … but nary a word about Bjarni Herjolfsson …
EP
9/19/2014 09:15:31 am
I know, right? School kids aren't even taught the terrible secret behind Oreo cookies! Where would we be without Scott Wolter?!
spookyparadigm
9/19/2014 11:38:13 am
Mainstream archaeologists accept L'anse aux Meadows.
EP
9/19/2014 02:30:01 pm
That's a good question, actually. What would happen if (per impossibile) they accepted KRS?
Harris
9/19/2014 03:11:15 pm
Not too much, I think. If, some how, it became accepted that the runestone was truly medieval, it would really remain a minor footnote in North American history, I feel, because there would be no evidence that "the expedition" had any real, lasting effect on cultures either in North America or in Europe. Would it really radically effect our understanding of the middle ages?
EP
9/19/2014 03:22:32 pm
I'm not sure it would change as little as you are suggesting. Presumably, it would encourage certain archaeological projects that are currently considered not worth pursuing. For example, whereas right now there is nothing to explain, should it be accepted as a genuine runestone its existence would require an explanation, and competing explanations would need to be evaluated...
Harris
9/19/2014 03:35:50 pm
You're right, that is definitely true. It would certainly make the Alexandria area more of a site of interest for visitors, as well. Seems to be a lot more accessible than northern Canada, in any case.
spookyparadigm
9/19/2014 04:51:20 pm
I doubt it would change much dirt archaeological exploration. It's not like, at least outside of the heads of conspiracy theorists and Oreo manufacturers, people are running across medieval European material culture and tossing it out because of a lack of the runestone.
EP
9/19/2014 04:55:32 pm
If Wolter's blog is any sign, the goalposts-du-jour are Tuscon lead artifacts.
Peter N
9/19/2014 08:54:22 am
Rev., please don't confuse what scientists do with what makes it into children's textbooks. If that's your problem, the hatemail shouldn't be directed at archaeologists, whose position evolves with the actual physical evidence, it should be on the Texas Board of Education: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2012/jun/21/how-texas-inflicts-bad-textbooks-on-us/
Reply
Rev. Phil Gotsch
9/19/2014 12:47:45 pm
And … after much agony, blood, sweat and tears, grant requests turned away, and finally a Blue Ribbon Panel … FINALLY … the "Clovis First" dogma has been (mostly) abandoned …
Reply
Only Me
9/19/2014 01:27:17 pm
And there you have it folks. The whole source behind the "Columbus myth". "These guys found America first, but we don't have a holiday for them!" So?
Rev. Phil Gotsch
9/19/2014 01:32:31 pm
Well … The "Clovis First" dogma did reign so supremely for at least a couple decades, as to impede research into other older sites …
EP
9/19/2014 02:28:59 pm
"after much agony, blood, sweat and tears"
spookyparadigm
9/19/2014 04:45:07 pm
When one wants to understand issues around Templars, clearly Clovis vs. Pre-Clovis paleolithic sites are key.
Rev. Phil Gotsch
9/19/2014 04:59:46 pm
Like it or not … the "Clovis First" dogma was a genuine problem maker in North American archaeology/history … and it does illustrate some of the concern voiced by Scott Wolter re: the hidebounded-ness of SOME academics ...
spookyparadigm
9/19/2014 05:06:48 pm
Then let him produce Monte Verde level evidence and show everyone to be wrong.
EP
9/19/2014 05:25:22 pm
Except Wolter ascribes "hidebounded-ness" to (quote) "most (not all)" academics.
Rev. Phil Gotsch
9/19/2014 03:47:49 pm
Oh, what elevated scholarly discussion, here … !!!
Reply
EP
9/19/2014 04:18:37 pm
I have elevated scholarly discussion with those who are worth my time. The likes of you are only good for mocking exploiting for google stats.
Reply
Only Me
9/19/2014 06:03:22 pm
A crank lobbyist who STILL says the "Clovis First" paradigm was a fact, after being utterly and thoroughly proven wrong, is making a sarcastic remark about "elevated scholarly discussion"? I admit, it is hard not to sound condescending when you are explaining things to an idiot.
Reply
EP
9/19/2014 06:25:25 pm
It's not that hard. I just choose not to. :)
Rev. Phil Gotsch
9/20/2014 02:28:01 am
Calm down … It's okay …
EP
9/20/2014 04:19:53 am
I wonder if you even know *why* you're saying "blue ribbon panel" or if you just parrot what you're told to say...
Rev. Phil Gotsch
9/20/2014 04:32:05 am
LOL
will
9/19/2014 04:04:24 pm
it seems to me that Wolter likes to take the role as the victim or The Advocate for a perceived victim.
Reply
EP
9/19/2014 04:35:29 pm
Fresh Wolter, straight from the oven:
Reply
EP
9/19/2014 05:33:21 pm
Wait, Yes comment, actually. Wolter apparently doesn't consider the pre-European settlers of America to have been "cultures".
Reply
Only Me
9/20/2014 05:25:21 am
I want to make it as clear as possible to any future readers that may happen upon this article. I offer the following summation:
Reply
Rev. Phil Gotsch
9/20/2014 05:28:42 am
Seriously …
Reply
Only Me
9/20/2014 05:50:44 am
Seriously...
Rev. Phil Gotsch
9/20/2014 08:40:27 am
I dunno …
Jerky
9/20/2014 08:49:56 am
Phil, I Dont want my kids learning "American History According to Scott Wolter" in school. It's bad enough that the History books already make light on the importance of my people and there contribution to my states history, The last thing I want is some Yankee punk from Minnesota having our history rewritten to the point that all of what my people accomplished, before the vikings ever got here, being given up to some to Europeans with this "White First" fairy tail. It's bad enough that my high school american history teach had to use my copy of "A history of Oklahoma" from 1920 just to teach a more accurate history lesson on the Land run.
Only Me
9/20/2014 09:02:41 am
I asked a serious question, Phil; I expect a serious answer.
Rev. Phil Gotsch
9/20/2014 09:03:10 am
I agree that "teaching history" both accurately and well is difficult at best, and always prone to abuses and questions …
EP
9/20/2014 11:13:02 am
Did you guys know that Phil Gotsch was the Chaplain of the Minnesota State Senate?
Rev. Phil Gotsch
9/20/2014 01:26:33 pm
"Only Me" --
Only Me
9/20/2014 03:12:05 pm
That has been your standard insipid response since the beginning, and I want to know what it is Jason uncovers in his research that REALLY rustles your Jimmies. I'm tired of the same, repetitious pointless catchphrases and lame excuses.
Rev. Phil Gotsch
9/20/2014 03:40:50 pm
*gasp* … I … *gasp* … can't … tell you … *gasp* *gasp* ,,, *choke* … anything … *gasp* … as long as you're … *gasp**choke* … water boarding me … *choke* … like this … *gasp* …
EP
9/20/2014 03:49:25 pm
Serious question: Does Rev. Phil Gotsch's last post feel like something that could have been posted by this guy:
EP
9/20/2014 03:51:24 pm
Perhaps someone should contact the real Phil Gotsch to inquire whether he's been making Nazi and waterboarding jokes on the Internet recently.
Rev. Phil Gotsch
9/20/2014 04:15:13 pm
Again … LOL ...
Only Me
9/20/2014 05:42:58 pm
Well, Phil, can't say I'm surprised. You endorse and are complicit in Scott's lies. 9/20/2014 11:28:30 pm
I'm far from the only person ever to give Scott Wolter a negative review. The Archy Fantasies blog posted an extremely detailed take down of America Unearthed, with some choice comments about Scott Wolter. As of today, none of Wolter's "friends and colleagues" has "risen to defend him" over there.
Jerky
9/21/2014 10:15:40 am
"I'm far from the only person ever to give Scott Wolter A negative review. The Archy Fantasies blog posted an extremely detailed take down of America Unearthed, with some choice comments about Scott Wolter. As of today, none of Wolter's "friends and colleagues" has "risen to defend him" over there."
Cathleen Anderson
9/21/2014 02:49:18 pm
I agree 100% with Jerky. While there is much that isn't being taught as least current text books, maybe excepting Texas, do not claim Caucasians colonized the Americas
Cathleen Anderson
9/21/2014 02:55:12 pm
I accidentally hit the submit button before finishing my last post. One cannot have a sympathy honorary degree anymore than one can be kind of pregnant. It is or it isn't and in Scott Wolter's case, it does not exist.
EP
9/20/2014 05:40:18 am
"I have to wonder: what other questionable activities has Scott Wolter undertaken that meet with Phil's approval?"
Reply
William Smith
9/21/2014 07:37:39 am
Could it be that Rev. Phil may want to lead the new Templar movement and preach at the new temple (proposed by Wolter) on Kensington Hill?
EP
9/21/2014 07:41:40 am
Nah, the real Rev. Phil Gotsch is just a lame Evangelical Lutheran preacher who is really into agate.
Richard "Dick" Neimeyer
9/21/2014 07:55:41 am
Wow! All these posts!
Reply
9/21/2014 09:02:59 am
Oh my... it seems we have entered into the territory of Rupert Sheldrake and "Morphic Resonance"...the evils of Sociology are indeed vast and profound...or revealing as the case may be.
Reply
Ralph E Vaughan
9/21/2014 11:48:48 am
Whether he is honest, duplicitous or deluded, it doesn't matter. He has made himself a public figure, and is thus fair game for any critic.
Reply
Rev. Phil Gotsch
9/21/2014 03:54:46 pm
Yup …
Reply
Only Me
9/21/2014 05:05:46 pm
And when, exactly, will there be any productive participation on your part? Also:
Rev. Phil Gotsch
9/22/2014 05:46:48 pm
Patiently … not for the first time …
Only Me
9/22/2014 05:55:15 pm
Repeated false accusations do not make them right.
EP
9/22/2014 06:54:21 pm
Your defense of Scott Wolter sure has made an impact.
Josh Hayward
12/12/2015 08:43:57 pm
What happened to turn the other cheek Reverend?!!! Or is it only when it suit you??!! Or you don't have cheeks??
Screaming Eagle
9/21/2014 03:58:23 pm
Rev. Phil *IS* SW. I have *NEVER* seen them together...
Reply
EP
9/21/2014 04:07:28 pm
Nah. Scott Wolter is a hunky all-American outdoorsman, who happens to be an intellectual fraud. Phil Gotsch is a dweeby Lutheran pastor, who likes to wrap himself in velvet and make terrible jokes.
Reply
Rev. Phil Gotsch
9/21/2014 04:10:14 pm
Thank you for the unintended ironic compliment …
Only Me
9/21/2014 05:11:14 pm
EP, you forgot to mention "moral fraud" for Phil. A man of the cloth that endorses and is complicit in his friend's false claims.
EP
9/21/2014 05:40:57 pm
Not sure if moral fraud or terminally self-deluded. (Often hard to tell with the priestly caste LOL)
Rev. Phil Gotsch
9/22/2014 01:49:08 am
LOL …
EP
9/22/2014 05:41:12 am
So you really are just an idiot and an awful person? Glad you cleared that up for us!
Rev. Phil Gotsch
9/22/2014 08:36:10 am
"EP" --
EP
9/22/2014 09:45:39 am
Sure I do. Either you're some asshole sullying Phil Gotsch's relatively good name in order to defend Scott Wolter, or you really are Phil Gotsch, in which case...
Rev. Phil Gotsch
9/23/2014 04:41:46 am
Yes … You don't come across as a serious person …
Matt Mc
9/23/2014 07:01:56 am
Rev,
EP
9/23/2014 07:08:02 am
Thanks for the kind words, Matt Mc. Though I'm confused about the "at least" part. What more is there to this than being entertaining and adding a lot to the discussion? :)
Matt Mc
9/23/2014 08:05:34 am
Don't think to much into the at least part, I have alway added at least or in the least to almost everything, got that from my parents. Kind of a DC I think since many off my friends add it to statements also.
Josh Hayward
12/12/2015 08:46:26 pm
Oh you're lutheran.. That explains it!! Un-holy rev is feeding his hungry pup the bullshit that he's been spewing!
EP
9/23/2014 05:37:35 am
I can't help it. Your hetero life mate Scott Wolter is a HUGE POOP BUTT!!!
Reply
Zach
9/23/2014 09:23:55 am
Is that a Jay and Silent Bob reference you just made there EP?
EP
9/23/2014 10:50:45 am
Not intentionally :)
Josh Hayward
12/12/2015 08:40:05 pm
Rev. Poopy Butt LOL!!
S
9/23/2014 08:50:49 am
Scott Wolter has never received an honorary degree from the university of Minnesota.
Reply
Zach
9/23/2014 09:38:25 am
Scott Wolter doesn't care about that. He's against the academic community, because to him they are lying and suppressing the truth of his Templar-Oreo conspiracy. So anything that scholars and academics view as being credible or honest in regards to historical research and science doesn't apply to him.
Reply
S
9/23/2014 10:27:33 am
It doesn't matter if he cares. That's the point. His credibility is zero. He can and should be simply dismissed as unimportant having demonstrated he has nothing to contribute.
Reply
PNO TECH
9/23/2014 03:48:54 pm
S,
Reply
Josh Hayward
12/12/2015 08:32:22 pm
Scott Wolter is a asshole! Anyone who doesn't agree with his ludacris ideas is met with angry condemnation! Especially the Templar pirates series! He comes up with the most ignorant and outlandish theories! And if you don't agree with him, watch out for his wrath!! Scott Wolter you are a bully and an asshole!!!
Reply
Rev. Phil Gotsch
12/12/2015 11:38:38 pm
"Exsqueeze me … ???" -- Wayne Campbell ...
Reply
Your comment will be posted after it is approved.
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorI am an author and researcher focusing on pop culture, science, and history. Bylines: New Republic, Esquire, Slate, etc. There's more about me in the About Jason tab. Newsletters
Enter your email below to subscribe to my newsletter for updates on my latest projects, blog posts, and activities, and subscribe to Culture & Curiosities, my Substack newsletter.
Categories
All
Terms & ConditionsPlease read all applicable terms and conditions before posting a comment on this blog. Posting a comment constitutes your agreement to abide by the terms and conditions linked herein.
Archives
November 2024
|