Scott Wolter on the Attack: Jason Colavito's "Life Is Unbalanced" and He "Can't Be Taken Seriously"

A Wiccan doomsday-prepper (a phrase I have never before written) has high praise for America Unearthed, a show that fits comfortably into an unusual worldview that sits partway between New Age spirituality and anti-elite paranoia:

Even I as an amateur, am aware there are sites out there, that don't fit with the "official" timeline of the human history.  Whether or not the secrets hidden are relevant is besides the point, the point is that they are being hidden, so that the "story of the Earth" fits with whatever the academics want. […]

Scott (can't remember his last name right now to save my life) has been a good watch so far.  He admits when he's entertained by ideas, but there's not enough evidence to support it being even plausible.  He doesn't declare something ancient man made just to make ratings.  An example would be the recent seasons episode on Rockwall Texas and their namesake.  Which turned out to be an impressively rare geological phenomenon but it was still fascinating as to how the rock wall was formed.

Wolter’s own corner of the fringe science world might also be described as a combination of New Age spirituality and anti-elite paranoia. I read with interest Wolter’s stunning lack of self-awareness in comments he made about me on his blog on Sunday and yesterday. I suppose it’s my fault since I went on The Edge AM program on Saturday, and naturally Wolter had some choice words about my performance on the show, which he did not actually listen to. (Note: In the following lines, Wolter confuses blog comments with blog posts.)

I received a blog post this morning that conveys the details and analysis of an on-line radio interview with an individual who has been critical of me in the past. The poster's analysis is consistent with my opinion this individual's life is out of balance and they should not be taken seriously.

My “life is out of balance”! Wow! I guess that’s nothing that a few Oreo cookies and a dose of dualism won’t fix. I will wait with baited breath for Wolter’s defenders to condemn him for the personal attacks on my character. It won’t happen.

But consider this hypocrisy. Wolter admits that he did not listen to my interview before attacking me as unbalanced. He later writes that he doesn’t read my work at all yet somehow just knows that it doesn’t address the facts and is focused only on his character:

The reason I haven't mentioned the blog, and won't, is because I don't read it and have no plans to. I stated the reason for mentioning the blog in my post above and for me the matter is resolved.

As far as the other person goes, I don't know who he is and don't care. As I said in my blog post, the people who criticize me personally are welcome to their opinion. If they believe an argument will be won by attacking an individual and not addressing the facts, will likely be disappointed.

I'm not interested in personal attacks and debunkers; I'm interested in factual evidence, logic, and trying to figure out what historical truths they support. We know a large part of the current history that is taught is wrong and I'm trying to do whatever I can to set things straight.

And there you have it, straight from the horse’s mouth: Wolter is angry at an imaginary version of me, one that is based not on my actual work but on his own conviction that those who disagree with him disagree not with his ideas but with his very existence. He also doesn’t know me or care about me, but is certain that my life is unbalanced. In fact, the hypocrisy of demanding that others address “the facts” while refusing to support his own views about me with actual fact was so obvious that another reader of his blog asked him why “you apparently have not read any of this ‘debunkers’ work, and yet you are quite willing to make judgments about him/her and that reflects badly on your work.” His response did not address the question.

For all of Wolter’s talk about “the facts,” his reactions are not appeals to logos but pathos—emotional appeals.

I find it interesting that of all the people I have written about—from Graham Hancock to Erich von Däniken to Giorgio Tsoukalos—only Scott Wolter has taken my critiques of his work so personally or angrily, or has accused me of being part of a conspiracy to oppose him, as Wolter did last year, or has called me made-up names like “hate-blogger” as he did earlier this year.

Let me quote Scott Wolter back to himself: “What is it about our show that makes you so angry? Perhaps it's fear that I might be right about the conclusions I reach in many of our investigations?” What is it about my reviews of Scott Wolter’s claims that makes him so angry? 

I hope H2 is proud.