Scott Wolter Lashes Out at Me Again, Says "Future Events" Might Cause Him to Sue Me

9/16/2014

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:

The highlighted text says "He ... has a (sic) honorary Masters Degree from the University of Minnesota - Duluth in 1987."

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.

Of course, Jason, I don't have to tell you to prepare for the coming shitstorm from Steve StC or Phil Gotsch. Just stand firm. I see no reason for you to shrink away from such cheap theatrics and intimidation tactics.

Scott's finding out what we already knew: words and actions have consequences.

Matt Mc

9/16/2014 04:45:53 am

But remember Only Me, Steve STC will take screenshots..... screenshots.

What could possibly be more damning

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.

9/16/2014 05:31:33 am

Piss *against* the wind, Only Me. Piss *against* the wind. :)

Also, I just want to point out that after threatening me with legal action, Steve StC made only one post on this blog (ignoring at least one Wolter thread completely).

9/16/2014 05:06:05 am

I got some things to keep Steve StC busy :)

Only Me

9/16/2014 05:27:48 am

;)

666

9/16/2014 08:04:57 am

Wolter is wrong.
A lot of other things are wrong as well
Mainstream historians are wrong about basic facts because mainstream historians are part of a clique that follows an agenda
Not even mainstream scholarship can be trusted.

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.

Jason Colavito link

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.

9/16/2014 05:34:24 am

Also, I'd like to direct your attention to Minnesota case No. 10-C5-96-000519

Is it the same Scott Wolter?

Jason Colavito link

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.

Jason Colavito link

9/18/2014 11:38:39 pm

Use this site: http://pa.courts.state.mn.us/default.aspx

Select "Civil, Family, & Probate Court Records"

Enter 05-CX-88-00692 and be sure to fill out the CAPTCHA

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.'"

That's Scott Wolter talking about other people? Really? Is his self-awareness really that low? He's the one who wanted to be on TV, and he can't find anyone to agree with his "findings," no matter how hard he looks. I thought for a while Wolter might be a sincere, if deluded, fringe scholar, but statements like that are the sign of a crank with no anchor to reality.

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?

"Instead of the court of academic opinion, the factual evidence concerning our history should be considered in a court of law under oath by professionals who understand proper scientific method, ethical practices, and most importantly, accountability."

I mean... What? Is this a metaphor? Or... How does this even make sense?

Jason Colavito link

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.

Jason Colavito link

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.

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... :)

Jason Colavito link

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.

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?

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.

Also, none of Jason's assertions are based on hearsay.

Jason Colavito link

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.")

There's no malice there. Just facts.

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.

Moreover, Wolter is the one who keeps arguing that his background as a geologist gives him special archaeological insight. His competence as a geologist is therefore relevant to evaluating his archaeological claims.

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.

Jason - I think you're referring to defamation. However, again, if the information released is factual, it's the person who made the original false statement who is on the legal hook, not the person who called him or her out on it.

Take for example, Sen. John Walsh (D-MT) who was recently forced to drop out of his re-election race for evidence of college plagiarism by the NYT. Walsh certainly did not like that the Times disclosed that evidence, but if the paper has it's facts straight, he can't do anything about it legally.

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.

Even if Jason deliberately acts in a way that he believes will damage Wolter's professional reputation, as long as he sticks to factual and public records and doesn't demonstrably act for the purpose of harming Wolter, there would be no basis far accusations of "malicious harm".

(At least that's how I understand these issues...)

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.

9/16/2014 10:21:51 am

CHV, I'm sorry you think I need to be informed of such basic facts :)

Jason Colavito link

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!
I read that and was dumbfounded. Is SW saying that he should sue Jason for writing that the (for instance) KRS is fake, and then get a judge to rule if that is, in fact, the case?
Anyone else read it that way?

...just, wow...

PNO TECH

9/16/2014 08:53:56 am

Sorry: that should read "...whether, in fact..."

9/16/2014 05:28:39 am

Jason, is there evidence to directly counter this claim by Wolter:

"The degree was certainly not officially recognized by the University, nor was it ever portrayed to be... I have always portrayed it as an honorary “sympathy” degree."

Because I'm pretty sure that he fails to portray it as a sympathy degree every time he fails to refer to it as such. (If only because people don't normally "give out" sympathy degrees and therefore there isn't presumption that they are such.)

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.

Of the two links in that original posting, one is dead, and the other still lists it as such:
http://www.zoominfo.com/s/#!search/profile/person?personId=7309033&targetid=profile

Jason Colavito link

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.

9/16/2014 09:24:05 am

That's because it's not a real thing that exists.

It's also what makes Wolter's every claim to have been awarded an honorary degree false, unless he does something to the effect of placing "awarded" and/or "degree" in scare quotes. (It's not even worth mentioning that university faculty aren't themselves capable of granting degrees, "sympathy" or otherwise. Saying that the honorary degree is from *the university* is false regardless of what happened between him and his professors over that cup of coffee.)

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.

So IMHO, he essentially reached out to the broadest swatch of his potential fan base (people who support, believe or partially agree with 9/11 Truthers) and shat where he eats. And it is no mere turd on a plate. It's a big all smorgasbord dump of stinky radioactive poo that comes across as being forced down your throat after reading that meandering trail of bawl baby points just to find that pot of crap at the end of the faux rainbow he tries to paint.

Props to Jason for keepin' it classy in his response to Wolter's post. The self-inflicted footbullets Wolter just reigned down on himself speaks for itself here. It seems like he is considering taking a few pages out of the Simcha Jacobovici playbook of suing his critics in academia as a vicious attack to ensure their silence.

If so, Wolter's should look at Simcha's severe fall from grace PRIOR to his adopting those lawfare tactics. Simcha had a lot more going for him as far as TV popularity, production and intellectual resources than Wolter's does currently. And nowadays Simcha has nothing but a blog-style column keeping his name out there. When you got nothing left to loose, abusing the legal system as a weapon of oppression cannot backfire on you if you look at his situation from the "no such thing as bad publicity" perspective. But making complete disgrace of yourself where your career and livelihood is put on parade for public debate is not exactly conducive to being a TV host with a public image that represents other entities with a stake in his show.

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.

Best of luck to him in his future-maybe legal action, though. I'm sure it will be entertaining. Maybe. In the future. Maybe...

9/16/2014 05:56:58 am

Future events such as these will affect all of us in the future :)

Jim

9/17/2014 07:08:03 am

The Amazing Criswell knows all!

9/16/2014 06:24:17 am

"the worst offender of bias and miss-information on the Internet is Wikipedia."

...says a man who has associated with The Barnes Review and Red Ice Media, among others.

Also, who is "miss-information"? Wikipe-tan?

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."

For your reading pleasure, Part 1:

[Doug,

Why are you allowing yourself to be manipulated by Nielsen's falacies and why did you decide to post this on the eve of my new show? This has all the appearance of malice on your part. The papers you cited are based on a 3D study on the KRS he won't allow anyone else to see and including the Runestone Museum who he tricked into letting him do to the study in the first place. Why do you think it is appropriate for him to comment on my geological work in the first place, he's not a geologist? Have you asked yourself why he has reversed himself on the work he once endorsed? This is clearly a personal vendetta that you apparently have been sucked into.

Your post is inaccurate and inappropriate, please remove it.

ScottHookedx (talk) 17:23, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Scott, it isn't mine, it's Deb (talk · contribs)'s. And Deb is definitely NOT Nielsen, look at her edits. The editing is not part of a personal vendetta. You need to read WP:VERIFY. You can complain about a source at WP:RSN or your article at WP:BLPN if you think it violates WP:BLP, but what you can't do is simply remove criticism because you think it's wrong, part of a vendetta, etc. As the subject of the article you need to be very careful what you do, and this sort of editing will end up with you being blocked. I'm glad you stopped removing the material. Hopefully one of the volunteers from the Foundation will reply to your complaint but as that's handled by volunteers and it's Christmas it's hard to say how fast they will respond. Dougweller (talk) 17:58, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Doug,

I am tired of this; please remove the entire listing and any reference of my name on Wiki. I will not have my name or research questioned based on fraudulent research. It's not Deb's fault, but I don't care to waste anymore time on anything related to garbage. Please remove my name from Wiki completely.

Thank you.

Scott — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hookedx (talk • contribs) 21:12, 23 December 2012 (UTC)]

Only Me

9/16/2014 07:06:04 am

Part 2:

[Non-notable fringe scientist (doesn't pass WP:ACADEMIC), notable for a single argument (WP:ONEEVENT). Subject has requested deletion[1] and he does not seem to be so clearly notable that this is an unreasonable request. Sources seem at best to be trivial coverage, based on the outlandishness of his claim. The sourced information could be incorporated into the article on the Kensington Runestone.

Delete, per nom. It appears likely that the subject's books are self-published, and in any case have had no significant academic recognition - and neither is there obvious evidence that the books have had that much recognition elsewhere. A single untested and implausible claim with only minor comment in secondary sources seems a poor justification for a Wikipedia biography - though it may perhaps merit a passing mention in out article on the Kensington Runestone, if only as an illustration of how easy it is to get things wrong.

STRONG Delete - Possibly consider adding a few sentences under Kensington Runestone, but I suspect this should be WP:FRINGE and should just disappear in the dust bin of history.

*Keep I am not sure he's notable, but he has explicitly asked for removal of the article because he doesn't like what is being said--he doesn't want his theories criticized; naturally, a NPOV article might inevitable give the impression that his theories are not mainstream, but that's irrelevant. That's not a reason for deletion--if the only articles on fringe scientists are the ones that have a POV in their favor, we will be in a very sorry state indeed. His book is in 74libraries, and tho its not a lot for conention history, its substantial for this sort of work.

Delete. Like DGG I don't like deleting an article because the subject wants to suppress all criticism of himself, but the fact is that his only notability is with regard to the Runestone, and the only sourced criticism is about that. There's no discussion of his book at all, only his technical report. All that can be merged into the Runestone article. If there are reviews of the books and sourced discussion of its claims about the Knights Templar and Columbus's secret map, then it might be worth keeping, but I doubt it even then, because this is all generic fringe history stuff.]

For *you*, Steve:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Scott_F._Wolter

9/16/2014 07:08:19 am

"I will not have my name or research questioned based on fraudulent research"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jCaBYEEFTKE

Tara Jordan link

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.

silverfish

9/18/2014 06:52:53 pm

Ha...good to see you back Tara. You were an early voice of reason.

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.

Tara Jordan link

9/22/2014 04:59:17 am

Zach & Silverfish.
Thank you gentlemen.I have no problem with the threats, the slurs & the intimidation. It comes with the territory ;).Actually I find it particularly amusing,when someone pretending to have collected many personal information on me,doesn't even know that I out of reach since I am living 12,000 kilometers away from American shores.

Gus

9/26/2014 07:11:28 am

Something ironic about a self-proclaimed social Darwinist blaming others for her becoming a Valium addict.

9/16/2014 07:54:00 am

I've linked to this before, but I somehow missed the best part...

Wolter took part in "Third International Conference On Authentic History And The First Amendment", which is a Barnes Review thing:

https://www.stormfront.org/forum/t25432/

The list of speakers (as well as it being advertised on freakin' Stormfront!) speaks for itself.

Not only had Wolter been warned about their reputation (Holocaust denying, etc.) and participated anyway, but... well, read what Barry Hanson says:

http://www.science-bbs.com/13-archaeology/55b2f1ee990f3031.htm

"I've been sent some postings regarding the Barnes issue and the KRS Museum et al. Not only did they know, they knew well in advance. I told {*filter*} Nielsen and Scott Wolter that they were out of their minds to share the stage with this group, they totally ignored my advice. Wolter actually attempted to get the reference to Barnes into my book, I strenuously declined. I also declined to put his KRS "paper" into my book for reasons which I documented in detail to him and Nielsen. The web sites (.adl.org/holocaust/carto.asp) speak for themselves, this was an incredible blunder on Nielsen's part. Yes, the management at the KRS Museum is indeed that questionable, the examples of this type of thing go on and on. Myself and the legitimate people that have been gracious enough to help me on the KRS science have pulled away from this whole thing because of this type of idiocy. No one in their right mind would want or allow this kind of an association.
I'm being asked now alot for an explanation of why the testing was
derailed so badly and why some strange things are happening regarding the KRS Museum etc. I will be doing a short paper and put some of the behind the door dealings into the light. The Barnes thing is disgusting but there is considerable more that no one knows about that I now think people should know about. Look for something before November.
best regards,
Barry Hanson"

Wolter "actually attempted to get the reference to Barnes into [Hanson's] book" (presumably after being warned *and* dealing with them himself).

Also, I wonder what Hanson is referring to when he says that "examples of this type of thing go on and on"...

666

9/16/2014 08:08:09 am

Quick, quick, quick - let's all zap Scott Wolter
I can't see the KRS taking over the world
Wolter is only propped up by the documentaries and that's all

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.

As for the Kensington stone, it's fake. For crying out loud.

SW is really classy for libeling other people on their blogs and books because he can't do anything else, and he's resorted to slamming other authors. I'd run the dirt on him, but my blogs aren't big enough. Let someone else do it.

He's got a fixed deck of cards and everyone else has a good hand. He should stop before he makes a mess of his allegedly popular fringe theories.

The Truthers? Okay, the KRS if fake but those guys are insane.

I don't think you pose any threat to SW and his oddball show, JC. You're not going to get sued. He's just trying to scare you. Your blog cannot affect his ratings. He must really think the critics like you are a viable threat to his theories. I find that most amusing, and somewhat disturbing. I would not want him stalking around my yard, because it sounds like he is that nuts he might be willing to stalk you. You'd have to get a restraining order if he does that.

What could he possibly be afraid of? He does have an honorary degree. He did get in those court cases. It's very interesting how the actual truth and his truth are different.

If PT Barnum had the Internet he would be like SW. (Note SW that this is not slander, as it's spoken, or libel, as it's written, and nothing JC said is libel in his 2013 posts. Opinion is protected speech. Facts from a university are protected.

Libel is an attempt to defame or defraud someone through hateful written discourse. He cannot prove actual malice for defamation as there is nothing defamatory in your 2013 blog. Citing from sources is not libel. Misquoting could be, but there is no misquoting. Besides, errors or omissions would not be libel. (Paraphrased as I'm not a lawyer).

So he can't sue you.

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...

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.

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.

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.

He doesn't want to accept responsibility for the leaps of faith he has taken in dispensing his versions of mythology and it seems as though he goes "all litigious" whenever honest people take a critical, comprehensive look at his claims and then exercise their freedom of expression in expressing an alternative (read: truthful) interpretation.

It also seems as if Scott Wolter is never content with how far he has gone toward making an ass out of himself.

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.

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"... :)

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.

To pursue a higher degree at this point would undermine his own thesis; giving his critics more to call him out on, and potentially alerting his fans to hypocrisy (if they were made aware of such a pursuit at all).

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!

9/16/2014 05:29:35 pm

Also, I didn't know this about Wolter:

"I played four years of college football and four years of semi-pro ball and have been physically and verbally assaulted in ways that makes the Internet criticism laughable."

Unless his "semi-pro ball" is like his "honorary Masters degree"...

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.

I was hoping we'd get to see some comments and replies on the new post, but alas he seems not to have approved any yet.

9/16/2014 05:58:21 pm

Did you read the part where Wolter apparently confuses Native Americans and Freemasons?

"Most Natives don't trust archaeologists and scholars, and resent how they try to tell them what their history is when, as evidenced here, they don't have a clue as to what you're talking about. You can start to become educated about their rituals by reading the Native Americans chapter in my latest book. Of course, the Medi'win Shaman only shared the first four degrees of their rituals to the Smithsonian in the 1860's."

Is this a thing? Because wtf?

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:

http://www.jasoncolavito.com/blog/review-of-scott-wolters-akhenaten-to-the-founding-fathers-part-3

Clint Knapp

9/16/2014 06:12:22 pm

Should read: Akhenaten to the Founding Fathers.

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.

Jason Colavito link

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.

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.

In April, for example, Wolter published an absolutely amazing post about the evils of academic peer review.

And then there are the comments... Oooh boy! Not only does Wolter himself say things like

"The Templars operated in extreme secrecy so how could the historians know anything about them?"

and

"When the Smithsonian Institute starts turning over the Native remains, and the Natives give permission to test them, then the DNA party will start."

and

"Please don't make me have to tell you that an absence of archaeological evidence proves nothing."

we also get valuable insights into the minds of his fans:

------

Dear Scott My name is Dustie Inman iam a mother from a little town in the foot hills if California called Paradise. I see all these people talking trash to you and about you and your work. I think you are an amazing man and incredible at the work you do.You are brave enough to open doors that have needed to be open for a very long time.Please never stop your inspirational work you are makeing a difference . Thank you so very much for all you do.

P.s if you would like a new place to dig around come on over to my
neck off the woods there are a few places i think you might like ......

All my thanks Dustie Inman

------

I'm not saying Dustie Inman propositioned Wolter in her PS, I'm just saying that's exactly what it sounds like.

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

"
Was it officially recognized by the University? No. They gave it to me as I have always presented it to be, a sympathy degree. At the time I was quite proud and when I told my then supervisors at my new job at Twin City Testing, they published the story in the company newsletter and added it to my resume’. Not long ago, the question was asked by the State licensing board if it was an official degree and I said no. Because I didn’t want my professors who now in their eighties to have to answer questions about this, I removed it from my resume’. "

So it additionally was on Wolter's resume at some point. I noticed also that he assigns the blame to it being there to a third party. I know I have never let a third party publish or alter my resume in any way. That however is beside the point, Wolter in his response says it was in fact at one point on his resume (all be it incorrectly) and that seems to be in direct conflict with the statements he is making on his blog.

"an internet “debunker” wrote a blog intimating that I was falsely claiming I had received an Honorary Master’s Degree in Geology in 1987."

Since if it was on his resume at one point, which he says it was, and that resume (one can speculate) was the cause of the two web listing with the incorrect information. So I do not see where Jason can be claimed to be the source of the claims since it generated from website(s) publishing the credentials of Wolter, Jason simply found them doing a google search and made further inquires.

One however can come to the conclusion however that Wolter either knowingly had it on his resume and only removed it because it was in question or that it was on Wolter's resume and he did not know of it and that begs the question how good of a researcher can someone be if they do not even know what is on their own resume. So either he was trying to mislead people or he is very sloppy and clueless.

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.

At best, he's got an honorary honorary Masters at this point. A Masters twice-removed from the actual work involved.

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.

if he does however believe that degree was legitimate than why does he say that Jason claims that Wolter claimed he had a honorary masters?

Honestly I do not see why Wolter unearthed this old topic, unless for some reason something happened that affected his peers or employer (I am wondering if clients are questioning or he value as an expert witness is being called into question) because it comes up on the google search.

As I have mentioned before once Wolter made the decision to start being on TV and spouting off the claims he does he faces a larger scrutiny that could affect his daily work, reputation, and the reputation of his employer.

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.

I'm pretty sure Wolter isn't saying that he never claimed to have received it, but rather Jason is out-of-line for intimating otherwise because he did actually receive it and still does hold an honorable Masters.

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.

Universities will have a list of nominees that goes through several committees before each nominee is approved. Then, they are typically awarded at regular graduation ceremonies. This didn't happen for Wolter, so despite his belief or indignation towards Jason, he was never awarded, nor has he ever held an honorary degree.

What makes this situation troublesome, even if he had officially received an honorary degree, is it is recommended that recipients list the degree as an award-NOT in their education section-on their CV. Wolter's résumé clearly showed the degree under his education section.

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.

Somehow, he still believes he holds an honorary Masters. And Jason shouldn't have intimated he was claiming to be somebody he wasn't, because he really is who he claimed to be.

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.

We can all print our own unofficial honorary masters degrees.

9/17/2014 06:20:16 am

@ Only Me

"I agree that Wolter *believes* he has an honorary degree"

I don't. For what it's worth.

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.

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.

Anyone who thinks Wolter is/was honestly confused is woefully naive. But then again, Wolter makes a living exploiting people's naivete.

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.

All evidence indicates he believes he received, and presumably has in his possession, an honorary degree given to him by his professors.

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.

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.

Ew.

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:

"Scott F. Wolter 01/22/2013 6:49pm

Jason,

I find your blog entertaining and the comments interesting, but nothing I would normally care to comment on or defend. However, this latest post merits a response since your research is partially right, and partially wrong. There is no way for you to get to the bottom of this so I will help you out.

In 1986 I self-published my first book entitled, The Lake Superior Agate. It was inspired by a mentor who suggested I write the book shortly after the death of my father as a way to focus on something other than grief and guilt. My father drown while we were scuba diving together on the Great Barrier Reef in Australia. The details of why he died are unclear to me to this day, but the fact is a diver is responsible for his partner’s safety and I lost him.

For the next two years I had tough time. I had to quit my job as field geologist with Mapco Minerals, my first job out of college one of my professors helped me get, feeling I needed to stay home and help my family. Writing the book helped get me back on my feet, in addition to the support of my then girlfriend and now wife of 26 years.

Shortly after the book was published, I was invited by the UMD Geology Department to give a lecture at the college about my research. Afterword, six of my former professors asked me technical questions which I answered to their satisfaction. Afterward, they had an informal reception in the Professor’s lounge where they gave me an honorary degree with a whipped cream-topped coffee as my “certificate.”

Was it officially recognized by the University? No. They gave it to me as I have always presented it to be, a sympathy degree. At the time I was quite proud and when I told my then supervisors at my new job at Twin City Testing, they published the story in the company newsletter and added it to my resume’. Not long ago, the question was asked by the State licensing board if it was an official degree and I said no. Because I didn’t want my professors who now in their eighties to have to answer questions about this, I removed it from my resume’.

I am still proud of that “degree” because it came from people I respected and still are some of the most important mentors in my life. I am also proud of the other books I’ve written and the research I’ve done in the arena where many scholars have dropped the ball. The Kensington Rune Stone is the prime example. Thank you for the opportunity to clarify the situation and I’m glad you’re enjoying the show.

Scott F. Wolter, PG
President/Geologist/Petrographer
MN License #30024
American Petrographic Services, Inc.
550 Cleveland Avenue North
St. Paul, MN 55114
651-659-1345
(Cell) 612-875-7871

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."

Quoting because WOW!!!

Walt

9/17/2014 07:52:21 am

Did I miss some important evidence?

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.

Without some evidence that Wolter either never received the degree, or knew it wasn't actually an honorary degree, then the rest is conjecture.

Joe

9/17/2014 12:12:37 pm

Walt,

I am not sure if you read the entire conversation. But in Wolters own response he stated it was a kinda of ceremony where he received a cup of coffee as a symbol of his sympathy degree.

Also Jason has checked with the University of Minnesota if they have a record of an earned or honorary masters degree and he has neither. Finally a professor is not able to give an honorary degree. These are given by the university. If any professor could give a "honorary" degree to any student for whatever reason they felt then they would have zero value at all.

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.
http://uawards.umn.edu/uawards/recipients/hd_rec.html

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.

On interesting difference is that Holand specialized in the humanities rather than the hard sciences and, it seemed, was actually capable of some minor scholarship when not bogged down by the runestone. What is it about it that really draws certain men to make it their life quest?

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.

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.

Those credentials are on some secret resume that Scott found on the net? Sop he never checks his resumes for errors? Attempt to deceive is more likely. He just thought people would believe it because it sounded impressive, and when called on it he blames everyone else but himself. He knew it was false.

As for Barnum, it was merely the line 'There's a sucker born every minute' that if he were alive he would enjoy laughing at huckster shows.

9/16/2014 03:00:43 pm

Wolter is nowhere near good enough a writer to pull off Dustie as a self-serving fiction.

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 ...

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?

Also, what do you mean "does really"? I'm insulted! :)

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!

9/16/2014 03:47:44 pm

More touching words from Wolter's fans:

"Dear Mr. Wolter, Don't let the bastards grind you down!! So much of life is gone from our knowledge. Sometimes olden things each time are first things when people like you begin to bravely question what history holds as past and gone actually flashes and gushes forth what is most human in us: The wish to know the wonders hidden in the deep distant buried past of our human heritage. I admire your courage..."

"The bottom line, to me, is the "academics" or really out of line to claim to have the last word. NO they do not have the last word. I also fine, they have a notorius habit of not including ALL information. This is INFORMATION HYJACKING."

"I have some questions about a paper I am writing for my Communications class. First, I stumbled into your show and haven't missed an episode, not for the tv spot, but for the information we all have longed for over the years. A situation that warrants us to look at the history of America with unbiased eyes and thought... If you don't mind I will post my questions here and I will give full source citation in my paper and will give you a copy of it."

"I think I slept through 9 or 10 years of my K-12 Freemason American History - one or two years of the same thing would have been enough. I own both seasons of America Unearthed on Amazon Instant Video - who woulda thunk that I like history!"

Steve StC: "Is it just me, or are the wanna-be academics getting worried? Has someone invaded their sandbox, stollen their sacred microphone?"

"I think they should be naming the history books after "Wolter" something similar to Webster's Dictionary!… Ur on the right track and any open minded human who's not brainwashed by politics and media can see that! There's going to be a time where you find something that is just gonna blow the age old lies out of the water and I can't wait to see it… as for the people who like to be negative… Don’t Watch it. You will hear it soon enuff when the country is awakened!"

Rev. Phil Gotsch

9/16/2014 04:01:43 pm

Well … Again …

I have known Scott Wolter for 25+ years both as a personal friend and a professional colleague …

I know him to be an essentially honest person …

*shrug*

9/16/2014 04:11:54 pm

Serious question: How do you reconcile all this with what you claim Wolter is really like?

Rev. Phil Gotsch

9/16/2014 04:24:34 pm

Please reference … "all this" … ??? Do you mean the snarky *fluff*stuff (above) … ???

The thinly*veiled threat: "I have secret information that I will reveal unless […….] calls off the dogs … " … ???

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?

Just for starters.

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*

Scott Wolter a long time ago responded honestly and openly to this question … It is NO BIG DEAL … That horse died long ago, but if you feel the need to continue beating it … Well, that is your problem ...

E.g., nobody who understands degrees and the institutions that grant them ever confuses an "honorary" degree with an "earned" degree ...

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" ...

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.

And still no word from *you* about how the Barnes Review situation is consistent with Wolter being "essentially honest".

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?

Scot link

9/16/2014 04:23:19 pm

Essentially? that's a step down from before Rev. Nor would I consider it a ringing endorsement.

Rev. Phil Gotsch

9/16/2014 04:26:51 pm

Nope …

I have always described my friend and college, Scott Wolter, as "essentially honest" …

Look … NOBODY is totally perfectly completely honest all the time about everything … Haven't you seen that movie with Jim Carey … ???

9/16/2014 04:39:35 pm

Your pathetic trolling does nothing to hide the fact that you have nothing to say.

I don't understand why you're even defending Wolter. Your comments aren't helping him and are making you look foolish and desperate.

Rev. Phil Gotsch

9/16/2014 04:51:35 pm

LOL …

Telling the truth about a friend/colleague is "trolling" … ???

Wow … Just, wow ...

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).

In particular, your "character witnessing" on his behalf is not going to make the facts any different - and the facts consist largely of things Wolter said and did that are public record.

But go ahead, your impotent flaining is amusing enough.

9/16/2014 04:55:35 pm

*flailing

Rev. Phil Gotsch

9/16/2014 04:57:06 pm

"flaining" … ???

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.

In everyday private personal life Wolter may in fact be a honest good person, who is to say but those who know him. One however does have to take in to account however that most friends tend to have a bias when it come to integrity.

However Wolter has chosen (not Jason or any one else) to be less then honest in his public life.

J.A Dickey

9/17/2014 02:35:04 am

I am willing to take Reverend Phil Gotsch's word on a personal
level that we can easily say Scott Wolter is quite charming and
also direct and honest!!! EP is picking up on how the situation
looks to outsiders. Happily being in a very small room right now
with an openly Neo-Nazi sympathizer or fellow traveler is indeed
up there with having to tell yesteryear's H.U.A.C that in one's own
radical youth you picked up several leaflets from a Stalinist front
organization. In light of the controversy, I am glad that Scott Wolter
is not really mulling over public office. There is such a thing as a
guilt by association. I did pity Rosalynn Carter when she was in a
political photo-op with John Wayne Gacy. Public figures are open
to situations like this given the numbers of people who like them.

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.

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?

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.

I.e., not even Rev. Phil Gotsch can summon the resolve to defend Wolter at this point.

J.A Dickey

9/17/2014 02:15:05 am

The Reverend has said nothing new on the topic that was not
said last April or May, but then neither have you. Given that the
long "monster thread" has upwards of 1300 replies, how can
one bring anything new as an insight into this? Someone who
makes a case for their being a quasi-official censorship on high
need only bring in community standards. We are not anarchists
nor do our institutions do things purely by whim. Our government
is selective in what is said to the public at large. Academia often
does not challenge the deeper ground-rules of a social order, we
all are not artists nor are we completely free. As to puffery and if
it sometimes is rewarded, yes it is. It is endemic. Academics do
lament a grade inflation over time. If something is an outrage in
a resume, call the person on the carpet for it. Dance the dance!

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
your opposite number. I also assume Rev. Phil Gotsch sees
no problem with asserting in a deposition that Scott Wolter
is a man who is honorable and fair. I also assume you'd be
of as certain an opinion about Jason Colavito, although an
internet commentator here. As to deleats, I am a lamb most
humble, Jason has deleated my better and worst prosepoems
to Truth. He has deleated me more often than he actually has
THE Scott Wolter who is 100% connected to America Unearthed.
Weebly lets good folks and not so good folks slip into another
person's posting identity. I don't blame you for my one slip
where i made a mistake with the letter "E" and the letter "P"
and in light of this, I hope S.W does not go litigous about how
Weebly lets the greater unwash'd comment here. Jason wisely
spotted an interloper who posted literally as "Scott wolter" who
made a rather insipid and sillt comment by my lofty standards.

Rev. Phil Gotsch

9/17/2014 11:17:08 am

Well … again … and again …

I have KNOWN Scott Wolter for 25+ years, both as a personal friend and as a professional colleague …

The sleazy sniping guilt*by*association attacks are just plain silly …

Scott Wolter is NOT a "white supremacist" or a "neo-Nazi" or a "Holocaust denier" or any such thing … He long ago cleared up the stuff about the "honorary degree" …

I dunno … I KNOW the man … He is an essentially honest person …
*whatever*

Get OVER it ...

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.

We get that you have a dude crush of Wolter. That's cool. Why don't you think of something else to say in his defense, because having you as a friend isn't scoring him any points.

Rev. Phil Gotsch

9/17/2014 01:12:32 pm

LOL …

No … I have no "dude crush" on Scott Wolter …

Remember … I KNOW the guy ...

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.

As being his long time personal friend you should maybe ask him why he is blogging about it 21 months after the initial discussion.

Finally he made claims in his blog posting that are quite fictitious. Specifically that Jason deleted his comments on the initial post and that anyone here is perpetuating a "Columbus Myth".

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.

Back to my question, why do you think he is resurrecting an argument from over a year and half ago?

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 ...

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.

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?

But not about how Jason's blog post is correct that Scott unethically stated that he had a honorary masters degree.

It appears that your close and personal friend is mad that he got caught and now is reminded of it whenever he googles himself

Jason Colavito link

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.

9/17/2014 02:34:56 pm

Wolter has serious problems with accepting responsibility for the consequences of his behavior.

If anything derails the gravy train he's been riding, that's it.

Rev. Phil Gotsch

9/17/2014 02:50:09 pm

But, then …

There is that very strange (IMHO) bit about, "I have secret information that I will reveal in public if […………..] doesn't call off the dogs … "

9/17/2014 02:55:48 pm

You are the only one to speak of "calling off the dogs" here.

Jason explained that the information he has is (a) not secret at all, but public court records anyone can order, and (b) would support the claims Jason has been making.

Jason explained that he is reluctant to damage Scott Wolter's professional reputation and wants to make sure he doesn't do anything to expose himself to legal jeopardy.

Read the post. BS only has a chance of working when it's not as blatant as what you're trying to pull off.

Rev. Phil Gotsch

9/17/2014 03:11:55 pm

Curiouser and Curiouser (NOT "Attorneys at Law")

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.
Funny that , as of 7am est, there were no comments on his post-especially considering it is dated the 13th.
I still can't get over the "...considered in a court of law under oath..."
Really?

Terry link

9/17/2014 01:50:12 am

The original post has 1300+ comments and the word
wolter is repeated 778 times and 'scott wolter' 328. No amount of SEO (Search Engine Optimization) tinkering will change this ranking. Seems he's owned completely, which is probably infuriating. Further, the fringe authors you write about simply do not have any meaningful nor consistent web strategy. I can't count how many times I typed in a name you mentioned and the first result was almost always to this site.

The first thing Wolter should have done was buy the domain name scottwolter.com, which is owned by someone else, and keep the site updated, relevant and new content added all the time. At the very least I would advise him to hire a respected SEO/marketing/social media company to take care of it if he's really that concerned about search results for his name.

J.A Dickey

9/17/2014 02:01:26 am

Thanks to Jason's efforts and research, I've encountered
unique ideas and very obscure people. I had no idea that
an established writer like Jack London had even penned
a science fiction story. Publicity is a double-edged sword.

9/17/2014 06:29:43 am

"the fringe authors you write about simply do not have any meaningful nor consistent web strategy."

Speaking of, have you given any more thought to removing all those links to Neo-Nazi propaganda from your website?

Cathleen Anderson

9/19/2014 05:03:51 pm

He keeps it going too. Which is going to keep it at the top.

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.

I have a history degree from university and while I find it difficult to accept much of what is on America Unearthed I find the various hypotheses and theories at least somewhat fun to speculate over. An open mind and all that, although as one of my professors said, an open mind, not gaping.......

It seems to have all just become rather personal and petty.

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:

"The self-proclaimed-annointed purists of any ideology-movement often turn out to be dangerously self-deluded and prone to the same self-centeredness as any other cult leader ..."

Hence, the need for Wolter to bring up a subject for more pointless posturing.

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.

But I would also argue that it is Wolter who is making it personal and petty. From the very first episode of AU where he rages against academia he made it petty. Followed by his harping on the federal government refusing to grant him access to the Georgia site without fully disclosing whether or not he even applied for a permit, he openly invited personal scrutiny.

If he didn't want to open himself up to such intense scrutiny and be taken seriously, he should have played fairly and not acted like such a crank.He viciously attacks established norms and practically demands to be proven wrong. Then when he reaps what he sows, suddenly he is the victim.

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.

But I doubt it is the majority.

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 …

So … Yes … SOMETIMES "Authority" deserves a bit of ANTI-Authority attention ...

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.

New talking points, Phil, your standard offerings have long passed their shelf life.

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.

Your insistence to lay the sin of dogma at the feet of academia doesn't hide your own dogma. Times have changed, and your chosen myths are just as wrong now as they were when you first embraced them.

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.

Wait, I'm sorry, I meant that he didn't work with mystery mongers, that once he was able to show the evidence it did kill the "dogma", and that he ended up chairing Vanderbilt's anthropology department, one of the top departments in the US for Latin American archaeology.

I'll agree that Meadowcroft got crapped on more than it would have after Monte Verde, but this is unsurprising.

And none of this has anything to do with giants, templars, Oreo cookies, astronomical windmills, Nephilim, ancient aliens and the lot. That's not aimed at one person in particular. But the appropriation of problems and paradigm shifts amongs professionals has about as much to do with these topics as the discovery of a new tapir by actual zoologists does with people claiming they share blueberry pancakes with the psychic Sasquatch forest people.

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.

Anyone who doesn't understand this indisputable fact has no business opining on these matters.

9/17/2014 06:18:20 am

This is not directly on-topic, but I have a humble request for Jason.

Wolter mentions Charles Pellegrino, whom he describes as "a brilliant researcher and friend". According to Wolter, Pellegrino "has also had his academic credentials questioned by Internet hackers who have posted false information on his Wiki bio page." Nevermind the "hackers" part (however hilarious), Wolter says that Pellegrino "has also... demanded to have his Wiki bio page removed permanently."

Most of Pellegrino's Wikipedia entry is taken up by the story of his published pulling his book about Hiroshima because of protests over its factual inaccuracies and him getting called out for falsely claiming to have a PhD. (His PhD is still a lot closer to being real than Wolter's honorary Masters.) Can't really blame him for wanting to take it down.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_R._Pellegrino

Anyway, he's someone who may be worth discussing on this blog. He co-authored a book about the Tomb of Jesus, authored a book about Atlantis, and is a frequent collaborator of James Cameron.

Just a thought.

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.

He does, after all, in the post we've been discussing here, call the present day the "Wild West days of the Internet", a term we can all probably agree best applies to 20 years ago. Trains came to the Internet ages ago, and now there are billboards along every inch of track.

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 …

"Calgon, take me away … !!!"

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 …

No, unlike Scott Wolter, I am no athlete of any kind ...

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?

Honoris causa: "...(esp. of a degree awarded without examination) as a mark of esteem. [L, for the sake of honor]". (Oxford American Dictionary & Thesaurus.

Rules, rules, rules. But, I can see a "sympathy" honorary degree as a viable form of honorary degree, specific to circumstances, and from professors vaguely representing the University. Vagueness here is permissible. The tension is in the stretching.

One may argue till one is blue in the face about this, but nevertheless, Wolter is within his rights to put a shine on his noteworthy mark of bestowed esteem, inasmuch as rigid rules do not prevent it. May I suggest that with a sympathy degree, special considerations are allowed to come into play, which rigid rules cannot adequately deal with.

Nothing has really been earned. Only "unofficially" has anything been earned...and WHO AMONG US is sufficiently qualified to say exactly, precisely, when an honorary sympathy degree is sufficiently earned or not, under some set of circumstances? And yet someone wants to come along and question what is honorable, what is conveyable, to whom and to where, and under what circumstances, in effect reducing the honor to nothing while naming the recipient a liar. But where is pity for the pitiable? Where was it a year ago? There was none, and there is none here today. Instead, there remains a soreness, and a continuance of old injuries; personal attacks and pettiness continue.

But the biggest problem, as I see it, is that Wolter believes wholeheartedly in the KRS, while Jason believes exactly otherwise. This is the basic conflict. But ultimately, I believe that this KRS-weight--this putrid chicken tied underneath Jason's neck--will be cut away, the burden done away with, as the KRS's genuineness becomes ever more apparent. I hope, personally, that Wolter will be able to go by a purer message of the KRS in the future, without feeling a need to add nonsensical detraction.

Good eye, JAD. You basically made my day by saying that you have been converted to believing in the authenticity of the KRS. Congratulations! I hope I had some little part in helping to convince you along the way. Waterways, man, waterways! Stoneholes, man, stoneholes! Odd to say, but I now think that the KRS and Runestone Hill are somewhat minor in the overall picture of what was actually happening around this region back in medieval times.

JAD, imagine yourself in far inland NE S. Dakota, standing within Mother Nature's seeming emptiness, wondering why anyone would venture out here from Scandinavian-Europe in medieval times. You look around and see the evidence you know is real. You think to yourself, "Of all the places these Scandinavian travelers would choose as a "landing place," they choose this far inland, totally obscure location. Why, why, why? Does this make any sense?"

Yes, and now JAD, you see that it does add up, when you see how it is that distant oceanic waterways dwindle down and converge in this faraway, totally obscure spot of earth...forgotten about until now.

This is New Gotaland...this is the story of Scandinavian waterway exploration gone amok. Though they wanted to make an impact on this specific location out "in the middle of nowhere," they failed for any number or combinations of reasons. But some of us see clearly that they were here. The KRS is one evidence, but only one evidence.

A simple story is being made far too complicated for no good reason. When the ten survivors left back down the Chippewa River after losing half of their party, they stopped at Runestone Hill and set up the KRS as a memorial to their comrades, believing that other Scandinavians would eventually be returning to that stonehole-encircled spot...which is most likely a topography-mapping feature. Yes, fringe history people, you are right...medieval Scandinavians were busy attempting to carve up land here in the middle of North America well before Columbus showed up. It's just a matter of getting history straight, when ADEQUATELY weighing the evidence.

Only Me

9/17/2014 07:48:26 am

You missed the point, Gunn.

The rules of bestowing an honorary degree are there for a reason. Sympathy or otherwise, Wolter's professors cannot give an honorary degree. As I explained above, an honorary degree is an *official award* approved by committee; it is NOT to be represented as continued education, equivalent to an earned degree.

Wolter's "sympathy" degree does not meet either condition, therefore, it is much more egregious than an "honest mistake" to claim it as "an honorary Masters Degree from the University of Minnesota" on his résumé for more than 25 years.

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!

There, Gunn. Only Me now has as much of a right to put an honorary Masters on his resume as does Wolter.

Only Me MS,(honorary)

9/17/2014 08:15:12 am

I....I....I don't know what to say!

TwT

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."

Now we see the point, that it can work both ways...or at least it can be perceived as working either way. The real or imagined insults are about the same.

So, perhaps we can now try to brighten the corner where we are here, rather than continue to revel in this "sublime" pettiness.

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."

Sounds great! Why don't you share some of your poetry with us, Gunn?

Rev. Phil Gotsch

9/17/2014 02:47:24 pm

"Gunn" --

YES … How about discussing and hashing ideas and claims and thoughts and possibilities … rather than trashing persons … ???

Only Me

9/17/2014 03:00:11 pm

@Gunn

That is the lamest, sorry-assed excuse I've ever seen you cough up. Pay attention, Gunn, for learning purposes:

EVERY criticism made about Scott's "work" has been considered a personal vendetta in the name of a faceless conspiratorial authority, without one single bit of evidence. This belief applies across the board to EVERYONE that has ever challenged his narrative.

@ Phil

Why do you persist in calling for a discussion over topics for which you have neither familiarity nor experience?

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....

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.

You are trying to make the argument there is a moral equivalence in Scott's words towards Jason because "Jason started it". So, is Scott free to be an asshole because someone, anyone will look at his "work" and find it wanting?

Rev. Phil Gotsch

9/17/2014 03:33:45 pm

LOL …

I have 25+ years of "experience" and "familiarity" with the character of Scott Wolter ...

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.

You need to grow a pair and quit deflecting or changing the subject.

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?
______________________

- I Am For the Underdog -

I am the great rascal
Leading readers astray
By my eloquence and
Yes, by my bastardly charm
Oh, I can make you feel
More deeply
Reaching beyond
The superficial
If I may brag to say so
I will bring an approach
Full of expression and
Twisted around with intensity
I may plagiarize artfully
Making you feel nervous
As I take the long walk
I exceed the average questioner
I see the hills
Beyond the house
I see down and upon
And all around the event
I move you, Mama
I am a poet
Yet I believe in some wars
I don’t like limp-wristed
Freedom free-loaders
Shedding one fake, watery tear
Rather than bright red, salty blood
Shame on those
Who are not willing to give
Fight for peace a chance
See, I am non-conventional and
I contemplate complexity
As I carefully instigate
I am an activist
I am twisted around
Questioning and subversive
I am for the underdog
Howling out of the dark underside
Of the non-said, thinking
In an extraordinary way
Truly, I am qualified
To be the next
U. S. Poet Laureate
I will demonstrate exactly
How I was sufficiently tormented
To be a loose-sketch artist
Of the page and brain
Of colors and choo-choo trains
I will plug into your emotions
And hopefully give you
Both plagiarism and a history
Of electric human feeling
Without being sued

____________________

Don't read too much into it. I've had a big change of heart during the past ten years since that was written...as I've lightened-up and hopefully mellowed-out some with growing dreadfully old. But I am occasionally still for the underdog....

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.

I think the world would be a slightly better place if you devoted more energy to expressing yourself through poetry (not fiction, oh god, not fiction!), and less energy to stupid windmills and stupider archeological fantasies.

Oh, and stop defending Wolter. He is an unscrupulous parasite and has fleeced the likes of you for way too much money to ever count as an underdog.

Rev. Phil Gotsch

9/18/2014 01:04:53 am

Vigorous discussion/hashing of ideas and claims: yes …

Trashing of persons: no …

Vague threats to reveal secret damaging information: McCarthyesque …

Joe

9/18/2014 01:19:12 am

Gunn,

Another example of missing the point, instead of talking about the points and claims you present a poem.

Both you and Phil are always talking about staying on topic but whenever someone tries to question on topic you both either claim personal attack or in Gunn's case try to tie it back to the KRS. So at this point I can only assume that neither actually has a counter argument to this or any topic that has been brought up.

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.

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).

Scott Wolter, on the other hand, talks about "future events" etc. If anyone is making vague threats, it's Wolter.

Rev. Phil Gotsch

9/18/2014 05:26:06 am

Sen. Joe "Tail Gunner" McCarthy had his "List of Communists," too …

So what … ???

Let's see the List, Joe ...

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?

Let me try this a different way, since you want to talk about topics. In Scott's recent blog he talks about the "Columbus Myth". This is not the only time he has mentioned it as a dogmatic idea of academia.
My question to you, do you think that the general public and academia specifically try to hold on to a "Columbus Myth" and are ignoring the voyages of the Vikings? If you do please provide evidence to support it.

Jason Colavito link

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.

If Jason is ever actually sued by Wolter, I hope some of your viciousness and that of others here comes into the picture (screen-shots!), along with comments from others that Jason should have cut short long ago. He used to have a policy against people like you causing trouble, but he has dropped his professional guard in favor of publicly trashing Wolter some more, I guess. This blog is his, and his responsibility, so we'll see what comments from this thread he allows to stand.

It looks to me like Jason likes to dig for dirt, but not as an archaeologist. I do not wish him well, because he comes across as unprofessional and mean-spirited, nor do I wish you well, EP, as you travel along with your venomous mouth, causing trouble along your way...yes, as an Extended Problem. Anyway, you helped me to clarify my decision to finally abandon this sorry blog. I now consider this blog to be a social menace and a waste of time--because of people like you who relish in being mean and nasty.

On the flip-side, there are some wonderful contributions made to this blog. It's just too bad that they are overwhelmed by those who purposely choose to be mean-spirited. I am for the underdog on this blog, in this present case, Wolter, because of purposeful mean-spiritedness. Farewell, friends and braying asses.

9/18/2014 08:47:46 am

"You have the audacity to openly question my intelligence"

Yes. Yes I do.

"This blog is his, and his responsibility, so we'll see what comments from this thread he allows to stand."

Whatever else, I hope he keeps your post above.

"you helped me to clarify my decision to finally abandon this sorry blog."

So I didn't make you do it, then? Let no one say that I did.

Only Me

9/18/2014 11:18:32 am

"Anyway, you helped me to clarify my decision to finally abandon this sorry blog."

Gunn's "I'm leaving!" farewell speech, number 128.

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.

I'm leaning toward it being a hoax.

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..."

Question: Didn't SW use a lot of Wiki references in
"Akhenaten to the Founding Fathers" and his earlier books?

9/17/2014 09:40:28 am

OMG nice one!!!

Seriously, this is the most damning observation in this thread.

I *so* wish I'd made it! :)

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.

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.

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.

9/18/2014 12:32:33 pm

Perhaps you're one of these two "skeptics" whose posts Wolter did not approve:

"In the interest of full disclosure I have deleted two skeptic's posts for the following reasons: The first post accused me of lying saying the blog post I said had been removed was up the entire time. In a search for response two weeks ago my post was no where to be found which triggered this post. If it has since been reloaded, fine. the post also included an advertising link which will not be passed along here.
The second post used the F-word in their criticism which is a 'no-no'."

Wolter's excuse for accusing Jason of deleting his post is that posts on Jason's blog disappear and reappear. Like... My little niece can do better than that...

Jason Colavito link

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.

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?

John DaSalvo (this guy: www.gizapyramid.com/DrJohn.htm) brought a crystal skull allegedly "brought" (smuggled?) from China to be tested by Scott Wolter's company American Petrographic Services.

In his book Power Crystals, DaSalvo claims that Wolter could not identify any signs of modern equipment having been used on the skull.

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.

I figured the link would provoke deletion, but wanted to make a point; even in deleting it he couldn't help but comment and provide his own spin and admit to covering-up the information.

It's even better than getting the post cleared and directly replied to!

It took hitting "Find Next" twice (though I just used Return) while keyword searching the page for "Scott F. Wolter"- how he identified himself to the Comments engine- to find the response. He could have just as easily searched his business name, business address, one of two phone numbers or his license number to find it even quicker; since he was generous enough to provide all of these things in the signature of his response.

9/18/2014 05:52:24 pm

Scott Wolter's been extremely generous in general when it comes to giving to the Internet.

And now the Internet is giving back. :)

Mike Morgan

9/18/2014 07:05:59 am

Gentlemen,

I plead with you to please extend some respect and courtesy to Rev. Phil and not be so harsh. This righteous man of the cloth is only rising up to point out a fine quality possessed of his much maligned friend, Mr. Scott Wolter.

Please, please, I say we encourage him to continue posting his mantra:

"I have known Scott Wolter for 25+ years both as a personal friend and a professional colleague …

I know him to be an essentially honest person …"

Remember, "essentially honest" = being honest only an infinitesimal fraction over 50% of the time.

With Rev. Phil, a fine, upstanding, righteous man of the cloth, publicly declaring for ALL to see that Mr. Scott Wolter, "a personal friend and a professional colleague" for 25+ years, is honest only an infinitesimal fraction over 50% of the time, what more needs to be said by Mr. Scott Wolters detractors who do not have the benefit of "knowing Mr. Scott Wolter for 25+ years both as a personal friend and a professional colleague"?

Perhaps in the future, a Judge presiding over a case in which Mr. Scott Wolter is a participant, may recall seeing a statement made by a fine, upstanding man of the cloth, Rev. Phil, declaring that Mr. Scott Wolter is a "25+ years personal friend and a professional colleague …" and "I know him to be an essentially honest person …", and wonder if when Mr. Scott Wolter declares his affirmation to the Oath. whether he is being "essentially honest" or..... not.

Please, please, please, do not do anything to discourage Rev. Phil from continuing point out the trustworthiness of his "25+ years personal friend and a professional colleague …", Mr. Scott Wolter.

With friends like Rev. Phil.......

Fr. Jack Ashcraft

9/18/2014 07:20:57 am

Rev. Gotsch,
With all due respect, in Jason's defense I have to point out that the McCarthyism assertion would better apply to your friend Scott Wolter, as it is he that claims there is a secret cabal of conspirators in academia, media, etc. all seeking to silence him as part of their nefarious coverup of his version of history.

Just a thought.

Rev. Phil Gotsch

9/18/2014 09:41:24 am

The "McCarthy" gambit is:

I have information (which the rest of you don't yet have) … and it's awful terrible information … but I'm not going to reveal it … (yet) ...

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 …

Discussing, hashing and debating a person's ideas and claims is reasonable and proper …

Trashing a person is not …

9/18/2014 09:33:34 am

Priest fight!!! :D

Fr. Jack Ashcraft

9/18/2014 09:46:49 am

Rev.Gotsch,
While I would agree with your statement it has very little to do with my take on your comment regarding McCarthyism.

That aside, while I certainly note there is a certain degree of personal invective here at times, I've not seen that from Jason. In fact, he appears to go out of his way to avoid that.

However, even given the amount of personal invective, Mr. Wolter is certainly not immune to the claim of its use himself, and if he wishes to avoid such should perhaps choose a less public line of work. The world of the internet is a double edged sword (as is the media). It can promote ideas and people as easily as it can be used to malign and calumniate. Mr. Wolter should be intelligent enough to understand and expect that and simply ignore what is simple invective and where he deems appropriate, respond to specific claims regarding his work and person.

I'm sure you'll agree that your friend has very little tolerance of anyone who disagrees with him, and even less with those who offer reasoned commentary as to why.

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 …

Unfortunately, even today, over-the-top comments invite a commensurate response …

Let me just say, again, however … Critiquing ideas and claims is an entirely different thing than trashing a person …

Again … The FACT is that I have been a personal friends and professional colleague for Scott Wolter for 25+ years … I know him to be an honest person …

*whatever*

9/18/2014 10:01:13 am

Rev., I thought you were a Catholic:

"We don't go out of our way to refute any and every non-Catholic claim that is made out there in the popular culture … We simply relate what the Church teaches, believes and confesses to be true ..."

(From the earlier enormous Scott Wolter thread)

9/18/2014 10:08:18 am

"REVEREND sorta hints at a Protestant understanding"

Not really tho.

Fr. Jack Ashcraft

9/18/2014 10:17:02 am

Rev. Gotsch,
I'm not sure that comparing Wolter to Martin Luther is of any help, considering some of the places Wolter has spoken and the fact that Luther was also an anti-semite.

I see you're simply going to repeat yourself though, and so any reasonable conversation is impossible.

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 …

Anyone of *free* to critique, hash, discuss and/or trash any ideas and/or claims put forth by Scott Wolter or by The Holy Father in Rome …

But trashing another person's CHARACTER is a different thing … I know Scott Wolter to be a person of good character … so when his CHARACTER is trashed, I -- his friend and colleague -- will rise to defend HIM …

Get OVER it, already ...

Only Me

9/18/2014 11:26:02 am

"I know him to be an honest person"

But, is he *essentially* honest? You've been trying to establish this from the start.

9/18/2014 11:38:34 am

@ Only Me

In the giant earlier thread alone, the good Reverend uses the following variations:

"essentially honest character"

"NOT an appreciably dishonest person"

"NOT a significantly dishonest person"

"NOT a substantially dishonest person"

Between this and some of the other characteristic features of his posting, I wonder whether his posts aren't generated in some semi-mechanical manner... Though why anyone would do so is beyond me. It's certainly only hurting Wolter.

Rev. Phil Gotsch

9/18/2014 12:26:06 pm

LOL …

In my personal and professional experience, Scott Wolter is 99.5 % honest in his relationships and dealing ...

Only Me

9/18/2014 02:12:10 pm

"In my personal and professional experience"
LOL...obvious personal bias.

"Scott Wolter is 99.5 % honest in his relationships and dealing"
LOL...obvious biased opinion

Well, folks, this conversation is done. "Robopost" Phil will continue his insufferable recycling of his favorite catchphrases. He can't recant Scott's words, nor can he excuse his behavior. He can't, and won't, enter meaningful dialogue about the relevant issues. All he has left is "Philibustering".

On the plus side, Phil's posts will ensure Jason's blog remains at the top of Google's search results for Scott Wolter. Truth, like life, will find a way.

Clint Knapp

9/18/2014 05:59:15 pm

Phil,
You will note that this is still not your blog and you still do not have the right to tell anyone what they may or may not speak of in this or any other space you do not own.

Note too that your friend is still lying about Jason deleting his response; that is actually what "trashing another person's CHARACTER" looks like.

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?

http://www.richardnielsen.org//PDFs/The%20David%20W.%20Koehser-File%20on%20Financial%20reports%20due%20Richard%20Nielsen%20from%20Scott%20F.%20Wolter..pdf

Rev. Phil Gotsch

9/18/2014 12:28:00 pm

Those are questions for lawyers to settle, yes … ???

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 … ???

9/18/2014 12:51:15 pm

So - perhaps someone knows and will tell us.

Also, you're really not even remotely concerned about these allegations, are you? If you really worked with Scott Wolter on KRS, then presumably you interacted with Richard Nielsen as well. Does he strike you as someone who is less-than-essentially honest?

You realize you're just making yourself look ridiculous, whatever you're trying to accomplish?

Rev. Phil Gotsch

9/18/2014 02:32:41 pm

I met Dick Nielsen once, perhaps twice …

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:

"In mid January 2008, Dick Nielsen and I visited Bob Johnson who made the mold of the KRS in his home... Bob Johnson confirmed that he was commissioned and paid to make a mold of the KRS by Scott Wolter in early 2003. He stated that he was furnished no protocol or test requirements. He further stated that he had made many molds for Scott Wolter of marine fossils but that he had no experience in making molds of stones."

Wolter was at best negligent in handling KRS, which resulted in its entire surface being contaminated, except for one bit that was in Wolter's possession and which he may or may not have lied about or mishandled as well. According to Weiblen:

"...the weathered surface on the cored plug is now the only surface area of the KRS that has not been contaminated by the recent molding process. The unstained cored plug is invaluable because future techniques might become available that would make it possible to resolve time differences between the weathered patina in the runes compared to the patina on the rest of the KRS (older) surface. For this reason it is crucial that there be in place a protocol for research on the cored plug and a documented chain of custody."

http://www.richardnielsen.org//PDFs/Runestone%20Museum%20Rpt%20062608.pdf

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 …

The Kensington Rune Stone had no such luck from day one of its discovery more than a hundred years ago ...

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.

9/21/2014 06:23:14 am

Rev. Phil Gotsch should take his own advice concerning words:

http://www.splcmn.org/dec22

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.

I get that you are the internet police for Wolter, even when the comments are not attacks. But how come you never defend Wolters opinions or actual view points?

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.

Ahead of Wolter's own blog and LinkedIn profile.

I can live with that :)

Rev. Phil Gotsch

9/18/2014 02:30:57 pm

I am Scott Wolter's personal friend and professional colleague …

I am NOT his agent, attorney, secretary, publicist or any such thing ...

Only Me

9/18/2014 02:39:52 pm

Then stop acting as if you are.

9/18/2014 02:45:02 pm

@ Only Me

Can we talk about Scott Wolter and the Kingdom of Crystal Skull? Please? :)

http://books.google.ca/books?id=J55zAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA79&lpg=PA79&dq=%22scott+wolter%22+%22crystal+skull%22&source=bl&ots=5jK3Lo76Rj&sig=bVIafXAGhEN7tsk41QnklYcvEws&hl=en&sa=X&ei=_YkbVP-1A8y1yASe8oKwBw&ved=0CDcQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=%22scott%20wolter%22%20%22crystal%20skull%22&f=false

Only Me

9/18/2014 03:01:04 pm

Three observations:

One, the opening paragraph contains a verbatim biography that is found on several websites that reference Scott.

Two, while I'm no forensic geologist, I thought crystal was durable enough that it wouldn't be prone to the type of weathering that can found on softer materials.

Three, if the skull were hand polished, I'm sure it would remove, or at least greatly reduce, any traces of machining. Sort of like how the Egyptians were able to polish diorite to such a smooth sheen.

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 …

Can we create a drinking game for each time Phil says the above? I'm beginning to think he recites it every hour on the hour.

Rev. Phil Gotsch

9/19/2014 02:41:25 am

Joe --

My interest in these trash blogs is mostly in rising to defend the character of my friend and colleague ...

Matt Mc

9/19/2014 02:48:38 am

Like I said a a mindless Parrot. See more Parroting.

9/18/2014 03:47:20 pm

Scott Wolter just explained why he keeps using the outdated and misleading expression "Columbus Myth":

"Until the Smithsonian, Wikipedia, and many scholars (not all) stop with the smear campaign against [KRS] and other pre-Columbian artifacts and sites I will continue to use the phrase to raise awareness to the problem."

A mature and effective way of perceiving and dealing with the situation if ever there was one... Also, the controversy is the hate-bloggers' fault:

"the skeptic and his minions represent a small minority, many whom are the very people who are, in part, responsible for the twisted history we're trying to sort out. In truth, the controversy they create helps our ratings. However, on this site I'd prefer to talk about the... various topics we investigate on the show."

The irony of the last sentence is too evidence to need to be pointed out.

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.

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.

To Scott Wolter and his ilk: I make no apologies for preferring evidence over speculation, facts over fantasy and the scientific method over pseudoscience. Like one of your own is so fond of saying...get OVER it!

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" … !!! …

(uber alles) … (immer … !!!) … (No matter dated Sites to the contrary … !!!)

LOL

Only Me

9/18/2014 04:49:14 pm

Semper quidem collocantur, Phil.

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).

Rev is just an annoying parrot, that is all he wants to be, he has no real purpose other than to troll on the most basic level.

Matt Mc

9/19/2014 01:55:53 am

Wolter is quite right however about the controversy is good for ratings.

While I do not think Scott is that smart when it comes to media workings it could very well be that he posted the blog post in order to get ready for the new season. It could very well be that one of the themes of the new season is going to be the "conspiracy" to cover things up and his posting was the beginning to start the pre show hype and also provide a framework and examples of how "skeptics" and mainstream scientists are trying to repress and discredit what he has discovered.

Now I do not think that Scott is so media savy that he is using this to technique but it could be done with prompting from the producers. Could it be that the things to come that he was mentioning is constant references in the show, maybe a even a segment dedicated to how the information is being suppressed. It is a different direction for the show but it is catering to an audience the Wolter sells to and one the H2 and its like networks sell to.

We will see what happens, I actually hope Wolter and his producers are smart enough to be using this angle to promote the show because it will be by far the most intelligent and well thought out thing they have done. It also has the added plus of not being able to backfire since all backfire would be perceived as part of the conspiracy.

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.

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 …

And we still observe "Columbus Day" as a national holiday …

So, yes … The teaching of history and the effects of that in our routine lives … is significant ...

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.

That makes it no longer interesting if your whole point is "everything you know is wrong."

If mainstream archaeology accepted Kensington tomorrow, do you think the goalposts wouldn't shift?

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?

I think this may be why it was necessary to drag in the Templars and conspiracy theories, to make it more attractive to the fringe types and explain why there is no other evidence. So, even if the academy accepted the stone, they would still be hiding the truth about what it all REALLY means!

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...

As far as the fringe is concerned, I agree. If they carried on after 2012 without flinching...

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.

What might change, I suppose, would be increased scrutiny of any possible larger scale disruptions. Kehoe discusses the possibility of looking at mortality at this time, suggesting an epidemic disease introduction. I don't remember that part of her book being very convincing, but that and genetics would be the places to refocus efforts I'd imagine (though population genetics has gotten a lot better in the last few years, so its not like that refocus is really needed).

Presuming nothing else was found, it would just be L'anse aux Meadows east, but without the barrier breaking element.

And of course the goalposts would shift to whatever else is next on the list of things someone wants to link to Templars, Illuminati, and conspiracies.

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/

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 …

But … We still observe "Columbus Day" rather than Bjarni Herjolfsson/Leif Erikson Week …

So … Opinions sway in many directions

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?

"And...after much agony, blood, sweat and tears, grant requests turned away, and finally a Blue Ribbon Panel..." Phil Gotsch STILL refuses to let go of a dogma that claims a "Clovis First" paradigm ruled supreme over archaeology...even though it's an outright lie. I guess you can't relinquish those anachronistic conspiracies that give you so much comfort, can you?

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 …

That's a Fact ...

9/19/2014 02:28:59 pm

"after much agony, blood, sweat and tears"

What does this have to do with you or with Scott Wolter's third-rate, fifth-hand brand of pseudohistory?

He's a geologist who plays an all-American archaeologist on TV. You are (allegedly) a biologist with a subscription to the "Science" magazine.

Cry me a fucking river. Your kind is pathetic beyond words.

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.

9/19/2014 05:25:22 pm

Except Wolter ascribes "hidebounded-ness" to (quote) "most (not all)" academics.

That is a falsehood that stems from ignorance and/or shameful populism.

Rev. Phil Gotsch

9/19/2014 03:47:49 pm

Oh, what elevated scholarly discussion, here … !!!

LOL

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.

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.

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 …

A "blue ribbon panel" got rid of the "Clovis First" dogma for us ...

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.

for example he feels certain groups are not being given credit for their discoveries or achievements in America which makes them the victims.

He has also claimed that his quote unquote scientific findingshave been dismissed due to an academic conspiracy against him thereby making him the victim again.

this time it is a conspiracy by Jason and other skeptics against him to now discredit his education once again he is a victim.

Regardless of the truth of any of these claims either by him or his detractors the thread that connects all of his actions is his desire to identify and advocate for those he sees as victims as well as be the victim himself.

9/19/2014 04:35:29 pm

Fresh Wolter, straight from the oven:

"until it becomes universally accepted in academia that there were multiple cultures that came to what is now the United States, the ["Myth of Columbus"] is alive and well."

Um... No comment.

"We are not misinforming the public because we plainly stated in the Vikings episode they made it to N.A."

So "the public" for Wolter includes only those who watch every episode religiously, then? That... would be par for the course, actually...

"most experts have been, and many still are, (especially in Sweden) blatantly dishonest or horribly incompetent when it comes to these three artifacts."

...says the man who may have permanently fucked up the KRS beyond the point where it can be meaningfully tested. Also, Wolter's Swedish experience must have been really humiliating.

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".

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:

Scott Wolter is a liar. There's no need to be coy about it. He has claimed an honorary degree from the University of Minnesota on his resume for over two decades. This honor was never officially bestowed by the university, it does not exist, and it is not recognized. He has also claimed that his response to Jason in regards to a 2013 article addressing this degree was deleted. That has been proven patently untrue.

Now, Phil Gotsch has repeatedly confessed, in this comments section and the one for the older article, he is here to defend Scott Wolter...a self-appointed white knight, if you will. That means he fully endorses and is complicit in the continued perpetuation of both lies.

I have to wonder: what other questionable activities has Scott Wolter undertaken that meet with Phil's approval? Sometimes a knight in shining armor is a jerk in tinfoil.

Rev. Phil Gotsch

9/20/2014 05:28:42 am

Seriously …

What is it about Scott Wolter that has you so worried and upset … ???

Only Me

9/20/2014 05:50:44 am

Seriously...

What is it about Jason Colavito that has you (and Scott Wolter) so worried and upset...???

Rev. Phil Gotsch

9/20/2014 08:40:27 am

I dunno …

I just never cared for H. P. Lovecraft …

yuck

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.

And with all these problems that already exist, now we got some one actively crusading to change history. If his episode on the bull stone carving is any thing to go by, my kids will have to be home schooled by a private teacher because I will not send them to a school that teaches them the Celts where here first.

And Scotty boy wounder why the Feds wont let him into historical sites. It's thanks to people like Scott that sites like the Cooper Bison Kill Site are restricted to the generic public.

http://nr_shpo.okstate.edu/shpopic.asp?id=02000171

And its people like Scott Wolter who keep trespassing on my land to look for signs of the Celts being here, Tearing down my fences, destroying my wheat crops, Spooking my cattle, and occasionally stealing gas from my tanker.

Jason, Keep up the good work. The work you have done debunking Scott's bs claims has opened my brothers eyes. Now he checks every thing he sees on tv for accuracy before accepting it as fact.

Only Me

9/20/2014 09:02:41 am

I asked a serious question, Phil; I expect a serious answer.

What is it about Jason Colavito that has you (and Scott Wolter) so worried and upset?

Answer the question.

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 …

You do agree, though, that our understandings of history events and their meanings must always be *open* rather than *closed* (by some received "orthodoxy" -- such as the now abandoned "Clovis First" dogma) … ???

As I have long admitted, I think that the H2 "America Unearthed" TV shows have a positive value in stimulating interest in and discussion of North American history and prehistory ...

9/20/2014 11:13:02 am

Did you guys know that Phil Gotsch was the Chaplain of the Minnesota State Senate?

America LOL

Rev. Phil Gotsch

9/20/2014 01:26:33 pm

"Only Me" --

Some time ago I stumbled across these blog spots, and found that the character of my friend and colleague was being attacked … So I rose to defend him …

Seriously ...

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.

Legitimate criticism, something that Jason and others have used to reveal the absurdity of Scott's creative reinterpretation of history, DOES NOT constitute a personal attack motivated by nefarious purposes...I don't give a damn how much YOU want to believe otherwise.

Again, I ask: What is it about Jason Colavito that has you (and Scott Wolter) so worried and upset?

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* …

(Seriously, dude … Give it UP …) L O L

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:

http://www.splcmn.org/dec22

This is the same Phil Gotsch, supposedly. I'm not sure this man would post like this.

Impresonating someone (i.e., another a real person) on the Internet could lead to serious legal problems, you know...

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.

What is it about Jason Colavito that has you (and Scott Wolter) so worried and upset? A better question: why do both of you feel so threatened by him? What are you trying to hide?

Jason Colavito link

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.

http://archyfantasies.com/2014/09/16/mayans-in-georgia-america-unearthed-episode-one/

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."

So Jason, Do you know why is it that Scott and friends only talk about you and get on your blog to "defend Scott" when they do not seem to do so on any other blog that gives "Scott Wolter A negative review."?

Am I safe to assume Scott and friends are doing it because this blog site is the first to be listed on any search for "Scott Wolter" or "America unearthed". That's how I found this blog, I was looking for info on Scott Wolter to see what his qualifications where after I saw the episode of his show about giant vikings posted on youtube back in 2013. I have been coming here to read the reviews after watching each episode ever since.

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

There were multiple cultures here before the 1300s and none of them were what would be considered modern day Caucasians.

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.

Scott Wolter's 'history' is long on fantasy and very short on facts.

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?"

Defrauding his coauthor?

Mishandling archaeological evidence?

Participating in Neo-Nazi-affiliated conferences alongside Holocaust deniers?

Brings a whole new meaning to "White Knight"... LOL

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?

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.

I say "real" because I'm having difficulty picturing Rev. Phil Gotsch (who makes lame jokes about Target and chicken soup to his congregation) posting some of the comments that have appeared under that name on Jason's blog.

Richard "Dick" Neimeyer

9/21/2014 07:55:41 am

Wow! All these posts!

I lost all what little faith I had in Wolter when he got all excited about that Exxon gas station sign.

You keep right on posting those future posts Jason.

Ashley M Heidi Carter link

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.

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.

Rev. Phil Gotsch

9/21/2014 03:54:46 pm

Yup …

And when someone -- anyone -- puts up a blog on the internet and invites open participation … well … here it is ...

Only Me

9/21/2014 05:05:46 pm

And when, exactly, will there be any productive participation on your part? Also:

What is it about Jason Colavito that has you (and Scott Wolter) so worried and upset? A better question: why do both of you feel so threatened by him? What are you trying to hide?

Rev. Phil Gotsch

9/22/2014 05:46:48 pm

Patiently … not for the first time …

When in these blog spots the character of my friend and colleague, Scott Wolter, is attacked … I rise to defend him …

Ge over it ...

Only Me

9/22/2014 05:55:15 pm

Repeated false accusations do not make them right.

What is it about Jason Colavito that has you (and Scott Wolter) so worried and upset? A better question: why do both of you feel so threatened by him? What are you trying to hide?

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...

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.

Seriously, Rev. That sermon - fucking pathetic. Jeremy Taylor is vomiting in his grave.

Rev. Phil Gotsch

9/21/2014 04:10:14 pm

Thank you for the unintended ironic compliment …
LOL ...

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.

Disgraceful.

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)

Also, still not sure whether all or some or none of the posts are made by the real Phil Gotsch.

Rev. Phil Gotsch

9/22/2014 01:49:08 am

LOL …
Your concern is touching … but … no … I haven't stolen my own identity ...

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" --

LOL … You really truly have no idea … What DO you think you're accomplishing here … ???

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...

In this particular thread? I'm trying to accomplish amusing myself, primarily. At your and Wolter's expense.

Rev. Phil Gotsch

9/23/2014 04:41:46 am

Yes … You don't come across as a serious person …

You "amuse" yourself by slinging condescending snotty juvenile insults laced with foul language …

Your choice ...

Matt Mc

9/23/2014 07:01:56 am

Rev,

EP is much more entertaining in his comments than your constant parroting. At least he can add a lot to the conversation and discussions.

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!

9/23/2014 05:37:35 am

I can't help it. Your hetero life mate Scott Wolter is a HUGE POOP BUTT!!!

Zach

9/23/2014 09:23:55 am

Is that a Jay and Silent Bob reference you just made there EP?

9/23/2014 10:50:45 am

Not intentionally :)

Josh Hayward

12/12/2015 08:40:05 pm

Rev. Poopy Butt LOL!!

9/23/2014 08:50:49 am

Scott Wolter has never received an honorary degree from the university of Minnesota.
http://uawards.umn.edu/uawards/recipients/hd_rec.html
At the time of the AU premiere he had one listed on his public resume. There is a zero tolerance policy in the academic community for this kind of misrepresentation, to say nothing of the unsupportable nature of his so-called investigations, and his highly flawed historical, archaeological, and scientific methodology. Like other cable tv personalities Wolter is impersonating an academic for credibility and then denying the demonstrable validity of legitimate research. No one in any academic circle takes him seriously because he's a charlatan. I would encourage anyone wasting their time arguing about this to occupy their time with something better.

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.

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.

PNO TECH

9/23/2014 03:48:54 pm

S,
The problem is that Scott Wolter does have some credibility in the minds of many. The fact that his show is still being produced and aired despite its many deep scientific and methodological flaws underlines the need for Jason and others to give the facts behind this dross.
Too many people are being taught that " the plural of assertion is data"
Also, because: divining rods

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!!!

Rev. Phil Gotsch

12/12/2015 11:38:38 pm

"Exsqueeze me … ???" -- Wayne Campbell ...

Your comment will be posted after it is approved.