Scott Wolter Promises New Kensington Rune Stone Revelation -- After Freemasons Review His Findings!

3/8/2016

All of you must be feeling a tingle of anticipation that Scott Wolter has promised “new” Kensington Rune Stone research! In comments on his blog yesterday, Wolter announced that he gave a presentation about his latest, and still unnamed, rune stone discoveries and plans to submit them for review to—wait for it—the Freemasons! That’s right: Now that Wolter has joined the Freemasons, he’s turning to the same group he once accused of a vast conspiracy to suppress the truth to help him “validate” his claims. Holy crap. Here’s how Wolter put it yesterday:

In any case, I presented my latest KRS research for the first time Saturday night and it was very well received. I'm almost done writing it up and will submit it for peer review to at two scholarly Masonic bodies. The subject matter of this discovery isn't taught at any conventional scholarly institution so it wouldn't make any sense to them and explains why scholars struggled so mightily with the KRS inscription for the past 118 years. They had no idea what they were dealing with and even when they do find out they still won't know what to do unfortunately.

I can’t wait to hear what claim is so special and secret that scholars won’t be able to understand the true genius of Wolter’s vision. He would only say that it involves “symbolism” and “allegory.” It must be quite special to fit an entire symbolic and allegorical narrative into the inscription’s couple of sentences.

That said, I must admit to being a bit confounded by Wolter’s reversal of course on the Freemasons. In the past, Wolter has depicted them as the secret architects of history, privy to the truth about Jesus, and conspiring to subvert the general will of the public to promote a Templar-Gnostic-goddess agenda, a group so powerful that they hide the truth about Jesus in the design of Oreo brand cookies, confident that it will never be found. Now he plans to trust them to tell him that he has uncovered their ancient Templar secrets correctly?

It would be funny if Wolter wasn’t also completely unaware of how arguments work. For a man who frequently describes legal proceedings as models for how to determine truth, he seems to have missed out on understanding the burden of proof and presumption. Consider his comment from yesterday in which he claims that those who doubt his assertions must provide alternative evidence for a different hypothesis rather than merely point out that Wolter failed to prove his case:

Can you, or Lesley, or any other skeptic give us anything factual to discuss? My God, all you do is criticize and dismiss and offer nothing in return. What evidence to you have the KRS is not genuine? What legitimate facts do you have to refute my geological work? What evidence do you have that Williams and Nielsen did not conspire to commit fraud?

If you can do nothing but complain then by default, I win.

That’s not how an argument is made, either in rhetoric, or science, or even a court of law. The person making the positive claim—in this case Wolter, since he is asserting something contrary to the archaeological version of the null hypothesis—has the burden of proving that he is right. If his evidence is incomplete, inaccurate, or incorrect, then his argument is not to be accepted. “Prove me wrong” is not a valid argument, or else we’d have a world of ancient astronauts, cold fusion, and snake oil.

Regular readers will remember that last month Wolter wrote a bitter blog post about what he claimed was academic fraud perpetuated by Henrik Williams, a professor of Scandinavian languages at the University of Uppsala in Sweden. Wolter believes that Williams intentionally omitted various dots from a transcription of the Kensington Rune Stone published online in 2010 in an effort to “hide” the Templar-Cistercian dot code Wolter imagines that he found in the stone. Williams explained that he omitted the dots because he believed they were a combination of tool marks and natural erosional features that were not relevant to the runic inscription.

Wolter has enhanced his attack on Williams, and he now asserts that Williams is attempting, via an online PDF file, to “control the history of this country” by suppressing the truth about medieval quasi-Templar colonization of Minnesota. After calling Williams a “fraud” engaged in an “obvious scam,” Wolter added that “I wouldn’t use such language if I hadn’t already consulted legal counsel who advised me these facts overwhelming[ly] support the allegations.”

In support of this, Wolter claims that Williams fraudulently denies that Icelandic manuscripts feature the so-called “Hooked X®,” such as those Wolter shared in an earlier blog post. I reviewed these alleged “hooked” X’s in an earlier blog post and concluded that they were the result of the upstroke needed to start the ink flowing when using a quill. This, I said, is why similar “hooks” appear on other letters of similar shape in the documents. I actually took the time to ask Prof. Williams what he thought of that suggestion, and he agreed that the most likely explanation for the hooks in these documents is that they are an artifact of the limitations of the writing instruments of the era.

Now, according to Wolter’s own rules, the hypothesis that the “hooks” on Icelandic manuscripts are caused by necessity when writing with a quill qualifies me to tell Wolter to “prove me wrong,” and I can therefore ignore anything he has to say from now on as an “obvious scam.”

55 Comments

DaveR

3/8/2016 11:04:36 am

Wolter appears to have neither morals nor shame.

Joe Scales

3/8/2016 11:10:59 am

The real issue with the hooked X is that on the KRS it stands in for the letter A, and there are no medieval correlations for that sort of rune translation. Now beginning with the Larsson papers, which Wolter disingenuously states support his theories, there you have a modern, 19th century source for the hooked X representing the letter A. This has long been the smoking gun, so to speak, to support those who believe the KRS is a modern hoax. Wolter actually provided even more relatively modern rune translations in this regard on a previous blog post without even realizing that he was actually making more of a case against his theories. Quite simply put, he can find all the hooked X's he wants from the beginning of time itself, but they are all irrelevant to the KRS unless he can show they represent the letter A.

Time Machine

3/8/2016 11:12:52 am

>>> peer review to at two scholarly Masonic bodies<<<

This is the Manly P. Hall, A.E. Waite and Albert Mackey version of Freemasonry.

3/8/2016 11:23:13 am

>>medieval quasi-Templar<<

Scott Wolter does not know anything at all about Freemasonic history -- the 19th century claims about Templar transmission were disposed of by Freemasons themselves at a Convention, and since are only regarded as myths within Freemasonic degrees.

That's the official line of regular Freemasonry.

Any Freemasonic body that does not observe the official line is considered irregular Freemasonry.

3/8/2016 12:00:08 pm

Erratum: It was only the Templar Rite of Strict Observance that was terminated at the Convent of Wilhelmsbad in 1782

PETER PARTNER D.Phil. (Oxon), Templars

http://peterpartner.co.uk/?page_id=355

>>The Wilhelmsbad Conference led to the dissolution of the Strict Observance and to the end of the first period of Masonic Templarism<<

Only Me

3/8/2016 12:05:16 pm

"If you can do nothing but complain then by default, I win."

The irony is overflowing with this gem.

Congratulations, Jason, Professor Williams and Richard Nielsen. You won.

3/8/2016 12:17:47 pm

Doesn't Richard Nielsen believe the KRS is authentic but rejects Wolter's claims.

3/8/2016 02:35:53 pm

I really don't know.

On one hand, Nielsen has said, "I have seen no unambiguous evidence that proves the KRS is modern." On the other hand, he has stated, "Wolter has not presented any replicable evidence that the KRS is at least 200 years old."

I think he still consults with Professor Williams in continuing to study whether the runes can determine a medieval or modern origin.

3/8/2016 02:51:04 pm

Richard Nielsen cannot detract from his belief in the Kensington Rune Stone for as long as the book he co-wrote with Scott Wolter is on sale.

Kathleen

3/8/2016 12:36:06 pm

My sullen, prepubescent nephew gives the same kind of argument. Makes me want to Zorro-slap someone.

3/8/2016 12:56:28 pm

LOL
Destroying one irrationality to support another.

3/8/2016 01:02:50 pm

Of course when Wolter says complain, what he's really referencing is a coherent, well thought out counter argument based on facts and evidence.

He's kind of like the kid who looses an argument and calls the victor poopy pants, and then runs away.

3/8/2016 02:09:18 pm

In response to a rather lengthy post I attempted to make on his blog, Wolter has now accused me of being Dick Neilsen (or in the alternative, Loraine Jenson). I can assure you I am neither of those two individuals.

Here's the entire post of mine, of which Wolter would not publish the last part in regard to Professor Williams solving the Medieval Desert Mystery, and my most friendly advice that folllowed:

"I'll respond here to a few open questions above, rather than piecemeal in an effort to provide a proper perspective on your challenges.

To begin with, you commit the fallacy of complex question, by presupposing your conclusions in how you phrase your arguments. These are your loaded questions, and at this point are too numerous to list; though they're obvious above to any student of logic.

But here's what inspired me to reply here, when you state, "This being the case, how could there be any factual evidence to support the contrary?". I would have thought you had learned of the implications of Popper's Falsification Criterion from the Swedish geologists and other scientists who rejected your geological work years ago. By you claiming there can never be any evidence to challenge your theories, they are then not falsifiable. Why is this important? Because falsifiability is the demarcation line between real science and fringe pseudo-science, and you have just crossed that very clear line for all to see.

Now even though how you phrase your arguments make them self-defeating due to the numerous fallacious forms you embrace, you cannot say I have not provided facts counter to your theories. Just last blog post, I challenged you in regard to your inability to find a medieval hooked X that represents a letter A, but factually, there are now other examples in addition to the Larsson Papers (and thanks for those, by the way) which show relatively modern sources for that correlation. Please note, this theory I support is falsifiable. All you have to do is find a medieval hooked X that stands in for the letter A and you counter my concern with evidence for your cause.

There are other facts we discussed of course, over the last year, most of which were originally brought to your attention by the Swedish team in their scientific rejection of your claims. One point that I find rather damning to your theory that the KRS inscription was weathered for at least two hundred years, is the calcite all over the rock and part of which is the surface for partial rune rows. Exposed to the elements in Minnesota, this calcite would have degraded heavily in just a decade or two, leaving no trace of the runes carved within. That they could last five hundred years, let alone two hundred is inconceivable. Now there's also the fact that you compared more quickly weathering biotite on Maine tombstones to muscovite on the KRS in making your conclusions based on your limited comparison. Likewise tree roots could not account for the staining on the back side of the KRS whether the tree in question was ten years old (according to some accounts you ignore) or forty. When all this was brought forward against you, rather than shore up your science, answer the concerns and try again, you moved onto the Cistercian monk thing and went off in the fringe, selling your work rather than offering it for publication in a scientific peer reviewed journal. And please, do not insist your work has been peer reviewed. Another falsifiable concern of mine, to which you simply have to offer a viable written review that would suffice, rather than bare assertions with no merit.

Now as for facts in regard to Professor Williams and the allegations you make against him. I only have to point out the Mustang Mountain episode of your television show. In that, you looked at some markings on a rock in the Arizona desert and went from there to speculate in your conclusion that a 12th century man came all the way from England to teach Native Americans how to build cave dwellings; and you do this with absolutely no evidence whatsoever, but only hodgepodge comparisons and great leaps in logic. This you do on your television show which purports to tell the true history of America. So when Professor Williams comes out and actually finds the group of people who made these rock carvings around 1990, identifies the runes as Sudovian based upon Baltic language and solves your Medieval Mystery quite handily. So do you refute your previous stance? Would you bet your fortune that Rough Hurech somehow managed to get from 12th Century England to retire in Arizona as you alleged on your television show? Or would you agree with Professor William's conclusions, well grounded in actual research? You can't can you. And that is why you came up with this blog entry, isn't it? Professor Williams took the time to take apart your fanaticized speculation which is solely entertainment for television, not true history or science.

Well there you have it S

3/8/2016 02:10:40 pm

And the last bit that got cut off:

"Well there you have it Scott. I thank you for the opportunity to respond when called out by name. As a friend, I would make one other suggestion...

Get a new lawyer."

3/9/2016 12:18:57 am

I dont recall hearing about the calcite before. Maybe he thinks the Templars touched the KRS with the holy grail to keep it from being water soluble. :D

I was curious about his response to that, but it looks like he deleted your entire comment. I admit, I could have missed it. In addition to his other faults, Wolter is a lousy blog host. He allows so many comments to accumulate under one topic, it's hard to slog through much of it without wanting to leave in disgust.

3/9/2016 12:08:00 pm

The calcite issue is compelling. It was brought to Wolter's attention by Runo Löfvendahl and his colleagues (the report can be found on Richard Nielsen's site: http://richardnielsen.org/Discussion.html). Now if you go back to Winchell's committee report to the Minnesota Historical Society in the early 1900's, the calcite issue was also a problem for them. There it was put forward that "Graywacke may be estimated to be fifty to a hundred times more durable in the weather than calcite, some graywackes being more resistant than others." They also concluded that, "In short, there is no possible natural way to preserve that calcite scale from general disintegration for 548 years except to bury it beneath the surface. If it were not thus buried and still is intact, it must have been exposed and the inscription must have been made less than a hundred years ago, and probably less than thirty years ago." So to account for the remaining calcite and the sharp cutting of the runes initially noted by Winchell, for authenticity, they believed the rock would have had to have spent a considerable amount of time underground.

So you see the problem with Wolter's findings? For his weathering study to be valid, and the date of the carving to go back at least 200 years, it would have had to be exposed to the elements for that amount of time to match the Maine tombstones; which would have necessarily eroded the partial row of runes carved into the calcite portion. He actually contradicts Winchell, whose committee, despite their belief in authenticity, also left the final word to the Swedish linguist in their report.

3/9/2016 01:59:21 pm

"I was curious about his response to that, but it looks like he deleted your entire comment. I admit, I could have missed it. In addition to his other faults, Wolter is a lousy blog host. He allows so many comments to accumulate under one topic, it's hard to slog through much of it without wanting to leave in disgust."

No, the first part is still there, but not the last bit in regard to the Medieval Desert Mystery take down by Professor Williams wasn't published (you have to click on "see more" at the bottom of the now lengthy comment section to read more of them).

We had a sort of truce and he'd been posting my thoughts on his blog for the last few months after an initial scrap last year. But it's obvious by his and insider "InvisibleJen's" comments, that he took offense for me posting here in his regard. So he accuses me of being Richard Nielsen and/or Loraine Jensen to justify censoring me from that point on. My posting history here goes way back to Ancient Alien discussions, and it was here that I came across the reviews for his show that had me even visit his blog in the first place. It's rather comical that he would assert that I'm his arch enemy in disguise given that rather easy online history to trace. Knowing him, he might actually believe it, as reason was never his strong point.

3/9/2016 06:14:08 pm

Got it. Thanks. Actually, you have to click on the words "load more". I probably saw that and just thought it was a descriptive phrase about Wolter. :)

Clete

3/8/2016 02:16:42 pm

"Two Scholarly Masonic Bodies". What does that really mean, if anything. It sounds as if it is two general meeting of Free Masons, listening to him babbling on before they adjourn for roast beef and beer.

3/8/2016 02:45:37 pm

>>>Two Scholarly Masonic Bodies<<<

I am sure there are many more than that. There are 50 states in America. And voluminous different categories of Lodges.

Uncle Ron

3/8/2016 04:06:25 pm

Well, Clete, he did say "peer review." No disrespect to the Masons but I'll bet the average Mason knows just as much about ancient runes as Scott does.

3/8/2016 04:27:58 pm

Freemasons don't believe in interpretations, they either believe in the authenticity of the KRS or they do not.

3/8/2016 04:32:02 pm

Hey Uncle Ron,

Don't you find it a "little suspicious" that God has stopped intervening in Human History since The Acts of the Apostles ???

Don't you find this somewhat worrying and depressing ???

3/8/2016 08:15:50 pm

Poor Bobo. Tries so hard, but just can't grasp the concept of clever repartee.

Yawn...

Terry link

3/8/2016 05:42:13 pm

I wouldn't expect it to be Ars Quatuor Coronatorum. They would rip him apart. Professors with PhDs usually publish there when they discover something truly new about masonry in a dusty archive or two. The standards are the same as an academic history journal.

David Bradbury

3/8/2016 04:25:52 pm

Scott Wolter: "What legitimate facts do you have to refute my geological work?"
Well, I have the evidence of my tests on freeze-thaw cycling in salt water to accelerate surface weathering:
http://www.pastpresented.ukart.com/krs2.htm
Given that countryside temperatures in Minnesota rarely climb above freezing between late December and mid February, you could fit dozens of freeze-thaw cycles into a single winter.

3/8/2016 04:41:58 pm

The following are NOT words from a man who is convinced he is speaking the truth, but someone who knows his assertions either are incoherent, far fetched, illogical, easily dismissed, or any combination thereof.

"The subject matter of this discovery isn't taught at any conventional scholarly institution so it wouldn't make any sense to them and explains why scholars struggled so mightily with the KRS inscription for the past 118 years. They had no idea what they were dealing with and even when they do find out they still won't know what to do unfortunately."

Clint Knapp

3/8/2016 04:53:08 pm

My best guess is that having joined a Masonic temple himself, Wolter now considers Freemasons to be among his social peer group and still hasn't learned that a social peer group does not equate "peer review" any more than his previous attempts to categorize showing his KRS "research" to a couple of other geologists does.

As far as the whole mess of having once accused the Masons of hiding all manner of conspiracy dealings and secret wisdom goes: he probably managed to find himself a local Masonic temple full of like-minded individuals who are more than happy to entertain the same kind of fringe quackery Wolter espouses on a daily basis and believes that this localized form of approval (in Minnesota, the center of all his claims and a state that has played host to a number of other ethnocentric claims designed to inspire its population of largely Scandinavian descendants to a sort of nationalistic pride and identity where they were often met with derision and contempt from Anglo-Saxon descendants in the settlement period) extends to the rest of Masonry by way of the same juvenile belief system that allows him to assume the Catholic Church has maintained an unbroken record of the truth of Jesus's bloodline throughout the centuries.

Either way, none of this really comes as much of a surprise anymore. Wolter's proverbial flash-in-the-pan has gone from a momentary amusement to a sad little scorch mark on the stove-top of Crazytown.

Stay tuned for his next feat: Proclaiming the allegorical connection between the Freemasons and the builders of Solomon's Temple is 100% (or in Wolter-parlance; 1000%, because fictional numbers make things more fun) accurate and as a geologist he can tell us that the G in their logo stands for Geology and they are in truth super-geologists and keepers of all the secrets of everything ever carved into stone.

3/8/2016 04:57:43 pm

3/8/2016 05:06:17 pm

Doule-post, somehow. Sorry about that.

Kal

3/8/2016 09:32:42 pm

S. Wolter is delusional. When given a literal rebuke of the KRS on his own blog, from a Kensington descendant who knew it was all a fake, he gave him an angry email and deleted his post. This is his way of winning an argument. Oh, you're just wrong! You're just part of it! Come on. If even given an actual source from Minnesota doesn't do it, nothing will.

3/9/2016 07:47:30 am

I wonder if he replied "Take that you poopy pants!"

3/8/2016 11:17:15 pm

"to “control the history of this country” by suppressing the truth about medieval quasi-Templar colonization of Minnesota."

...what good would that even do, anyway? NOBODY REALLY CARES. Even if we found the mummy of Henry Sinclair in a 1300s European castle in the middle of a burial mound in Minnesota, it wouldn't change a damned thing about the modern world. It would be a curiosity and nothing more. It wouldn't suddenly give rights to the presidency over to Kind Fake Sinclair or mandate that the official language of the United States suddenly must become Norwegian or something.

I do not understand this obsession with the "truth" of the KRS...

3/9/2016 12:04:29 am

For Wollter, the KRS is his life's work. Back in the 90's academics took him seriously, based upon his petrography firm no doubt. Then when his faulty reasoning and slipshod methodology became apparent, and he wouldn't bend when confronted with accurate critiques from those better versed within the fields of which he was intruding, he went scorched earth on them all, followed his wife to the fringe and got a television show. No one with any real credentials will go near him now. And can you blame them?

In nearly all of his rants against Academia in general and Professor Williams in particular, what he rails against are characteristics that better describe himself. Funny how that works.

3/9/2016 08:02:01 am

No amount of evidence against the KRS will ever change Wolter's assertions. Even if a letter was found from the carver explaining how and why he created it in the 1800s Wolter would simply claim the letter was fake and the stone is authentic. His career is predicated on the continuation of what in his mind is some vast academic controversy.

Ysne

3/9/2016 12:47:27 am

Two scholarly masonic publications? The ones that qualify as scholarly probably wouldn't print it and the others are so desperate for content to fill their pages they will take anything. I'm getting dizzy just trying to think about this one.

Titus Pullo

3/9/2016 08:33:31 am

This all sounds like the "daisy chain" of believability. Classic example is Gavin Menzies of the Chinese discovery of America fame. He looked at some maps which were should we say a bit debatable in terms of dates and then hypothesized who could have made them..voila..only the Chinese were sending Ocean vessels on discovery during that time frame. Once the first link was created it was easy to create the rest...SW does the same thing. If you question his original assumptions it tends to go downhill pretty fast.

I'm not a weathering expert but just common sense asks why does he think Knights Templar/Norse (I never go the connection on that one) go on land expeditions thousands of miles from where they might have made landfall after an ocean journey? The Norse always stayed close to water, there is no evidence that I could find they ever went on land expeditions and never for "discovery" but for economics. The land claim thing is so silly. Put a rock down with a land claim and then go away for a few hundred years. I find the "rock" and who cares the people making the claim were not a recognized nation whose laws America would even recognize anyway. Given we are ruled by English common law, foreign land claims were by and large rejected in such from the later middle ages to today.

And of course where is the proof these wanton knights were exploring that area? No bodies, no garbage.no sunken vessels (there is no evidence any pre Columbus explorers sailed down Hudson's Bay...let alone go on a hike into deep MN. This is like the Copper theory. Sorry buy thousands of Minoans did not sail across the Atlantic with their vessels (which were unsuited for the North Atlantic) then sail up the St Lawerence River into Lake Ontario and then by some magical canal that didn't exist find their way to Isle Royale and then mine for a few hundred years with no evidence they left behind. Logistically this was way beyond any bronze age society.

Sorry the daisy chain's first link breaks on the KRS.

Bob Jase

3/9/2016 08:54:34 am

Damn it Scott! Don't get distracted now, we're all still waiting on your peer-reviewed paper on that Roman sword.

3/9/2016 09:09:58 am

Isn't he having that reviewed by scholars at ToyRUs?

3/9/2016 12:39:42 pm

Show some sensitivity! The man's career is still recovering from lead poisoning. ;)

3/9/2016 01:10:25 pm

Great comment! Brought a smile to my face.

Shane Sullivan

3/9/2016 02:12:51 pm

Bravo, tm!

John

3/12/2016 01:27:06 pm

I think I found something interesting on Scott Wolter’s “Kensington Rune Stone Deception Disguised as ‘Scholarship’“ blog post. If one scrolls down to the reply on February 12, at 12:47 pm you will see the following post:

“Scott Wolter February 12, 2016 at 12:47 PM

I have known Scott Wolter for a long time, as well as dealt with Dr. Henrik Williams over a period of time in the recent past. Quite frankly, in an email that was sent to me concerning his email sent to you back in November about Scott's appearance at your wonderful university, I was shocked by his tone, his accusations and his unprofessional attitude towards Scott Wolter.

  Dr. William's objections to Scott Wolter's appearance reminds me of those who back in the 1500's were using strong arm tactics, to put it mildly, against those who dare believe that the earth was round just because  these individuals had a different theory about such a possibility. Even though Dr. Williams is a renown runologist in Sweden and more than likely in Europe, too, he has now decided to condemn Scott's research in a  venomous way, especially his research on the Kensington Rune Stone, who with his own research alongside that of Scott's at the time, helped prove that this stone was indeed a real Medieval artifact. However, now he is withdrawing his support or having second thoughts for unknown personal reasons and even denying that he even helped to prove that this stone was indeed real and authentic.  

In recent weeks, my own research has given Scott more and more valuable information that is helping him to prove his theories about the validity of the "Hooked X", as having been in use from at least the time period after the death of Jesus right up through the present time, evidenced on  the Talpiot Tomb Lid on Jesus' tomb. Also, having looked through 100's of documents at the (www.handrit.is) website, which is an Icelandic website, we located several Hooked X's, a few of which were used for the letter "a", proving once again of its use well into the mid 17-18th centuries in different alphabets. We also located 120 instances where the letter X was used for or substituted for the letter "a", as well in our research. I can guarantee that more exciting information will be coming out through Scott's research over these new discoveries found in those Icelandic runic manuscripts in the coming weeks.  

As one might remember, the discovery of the Larsson Papers several years ago dating to 1883 or so, showed the use of the "Hooked X" as the letter "a" in this one alphabet or cipher. Of course, part of Dr. William's criticism of Wolter's theory on the Hooked X has been that it has not  been found nor was it ever used prior to 1883 and that no letter "X" has been used for the letter "a" anywhere in history from Medieval times throughout the 19th century. However, I have found several instances of this Hooked X being used prior to 1883, thereby dismissing his accusations completely in the hundreds of Icelandic manuscripts that were studied.

  My only hope is that if you ever have any doubts about ever inviting Scott back to speak at your university in the near future, please know that the free expression of ideas, theories and research help to stimulate the minds of those who are so ever curious. To deny such a speaker on the grounds because of opponents, like Dr. Williams, who want to be politically correct here or because some of the same researchers again, like Dr. Williams, who do not like Scott's methods of research or his work itself, would be taking all of us back to the Dark Ages. I know for a certainty that Scott Wolter would never stoop to such an  unprofessional level in writing to you if you ever decided to have Dr. Williams talk at your university just because he disagreed with another researcher over their own research. In fact, knowing Scott as I do, he would always be willing to discuss his differences in a professional way with such a person, always taking the high road in all things pertaining to history and its discoveries.

  Steve DiMarzo Jr.”

Now at first I thought, like any body would, that it was a normal post. I then made the observation that it was signed “Steve DiMarzo Jr” even though it was posted by Wolter’s profile account. Knowing the way Scott Wolter acts, I thought that he was posting an email he recieved from Steve DiMarzo Jr. and that he was trying to make a “point” about something. However I then noticed the reply to it which was also posted by Wolter’s profile account which said the following:

“Scott Wolter February 12, 2016 at 1:05 PM 

Steve,  I appreciate your supportive comments and the examples of the unprofessional conduct of Professor Williams who apparently thinks he can control what American Universities can and can't do fro

3/12/2016 01:28:12 pm

“Scott Wolter February 12, 2016 at 1:05 PM 

Steve,  I appreciate your supportive comments and the examples of the unprofessional conduct of Professor Williams who apparently thinks he can control what American Universities can and can't do from Sweden.   

What I think is getting lost in all this is what is the most disturbing aspect in this sad affair. We can't forget that Williams and Nielsen have made these fraudulent claims based on a 3D imaging study they obtained through deceptive means, and then refused to let anybody else see for the past seven years. Supporters like "Joe" rail on and on about "academic peer review" yet say nothing about the academic criminal behavior of these two who claim to be scholars.  

One of my research colleagues, Jerry Lutgen, called Dick Nielsen this summer and asked him point blank if he could review the 3D imaging data and Nielsen refused to grant him access. To me, this fact represents the most egregious example of their outrageous unethical behavior.”

Now I don’t know if this is the case, (I could be dead wrong here) but is it me, or did Wolter just reply to a post he made up on the spot, in which he just pretended to be Steve DiMarzo Jr., as a way of trying to make his point against Professor Henrik Williams? Because if that is the case, then Wolter really is as stupid as we believed he was, as he just forgot to sign out of his account to pose as Steve DiMarzo and was so lazy, that he couldn't even bother to check himself. I also thought of the possibility that he let DiMarzo sign into his account to make that post, but then I realized just how stupid that idea was since I wouldn’t think Wolter would allow someone to do that.

Heres the link to the blog entry, so others can check for themselves (if these replies are even still there at all — I screen capped them just in case they aren’t there anymore):

http://scottwolteranswers.blogspot.com/2016/02/kensington-rune-stone-deception.html 

Am I crazy for thinking this?

EasyE

3/13/2016 01:17:28 am

Ck out the sentence structuring...Scott regularly starts out his paragraphs with transitional phrases such as:
Scott WolterFebruary 12, 2016 at 8:43 AM

"Gunn,

Apparently, Williams not (...)

In any case, it is totally irresponsible and unethical (...)

Think about this, Williams has resorted (...)

And then the next day feb 13:

To be clear, I have never said (...)
In my opinion, Williams and Nielsen are playing fast and loose with the "Dotted R" as they both know it's the

And here's our George Costantza Jr. quote:

In recent weeks, my own research has given Scott more and more valuable information that is helping him to prove his (...)

As one might remember, the discovery of the Larsson Papers(...)

Looks like someone forgot to mix it up.

3/13/2016 12:13:57 pm

I just realized after looking at the sentence structuring and the words that Scott often uses, that the similar sentence structuring and words can be found in other posts of Scott's "followers" who post under the "Anonymous" profile. If that's the case than, along with this misstep of his, he has in fact been posting under various names to fill up his comment section, and now forgot to sign out of his account in his latest attempt. I'd like to see if Steve DiMarzo Jr. can be contacted and be able to verify if that is in fact his actual reply. I still am convinced it's not him since it was a reply posted by Wolter's account itself, and is perhaps one the most stupidest mistakes Wolter has ever made. And thats saying something.

3/13/2016 12:56:53 pm

I have been trying to reply to this post in the last couple of days to ask Wolter about this mistake, and (surprise, surprise) he hasn't answered back yet. This is the new reply I just made to it:

"Scott,

I find it to be deceiving of you to say you don't censor posts, as I have tried replying to this and thought I would get an answer. I asked in my previous replies to this post of yours why it was in response to your own post, which was signed by "Steve DiMarzo Jr." I would like an honest answer, as I do not understand why someone, who claims to be an ethical researcher, would pose as another person to prove their point when they could have gotten the person to make the posting their self. This way you would look transparent, instead, this mistake of yours, makes yourself not just look foolish, but also look like a fraud. I just would like to know why you didn't fix this mistake when you could, so as to save face, because this now proves other's claims of the disgusting lengths you are willing to go to, which now includes impersonating other people.

-- John"

I would just like to see if Scott finally responds to it. I'm betting he won't, since he has been further proving that he does in fact censor, delete, and not post replies that he feels he has no control over if he knows he can't win his argument. Just in case I made a screen shot of it so I can prove it to Scott that he has in fact not been answering me. I honestly, would not be surprised if those posts end up being deleted. Just waiting to see what happens.

Jamie Eckles

3/13/2016 04:18:21 pm

Does SW believe that in the 1500s people argued about the shape of the Earth? Really? Since the time of Eratosthenes and even before that people have known the Earth was not flat.

3/13/2016 07:22:25 pm

You know it's interesting, because after the last couple of days my posts on Wolter's blog finally showed up just within the last hour, and another post of mine where I called Wolter out on comparing the "socialism" of the USSR to the socialism of Sweden got deleted. Funny how that works out.

3/13/2016 07:29:23 pm

And now my posts, that he finally allowed to be shown in regards to the Steven DiMarzo Jr. situation are now deleted. If anyone who has experienced this with Wolter, or just want me to prove that he has been doing this, I have made screenshots of all my posts as well as of when they are deleted if anyone wants the evidence. This just proves that Scott Wolter is far slimier than we thought he was.

3/13/2016 11:02:22 pm

John,
Once Wolter's blog topics exceed a certain post count, you have to go to the bottom of the page and hit "load more" to see the latest ones. That thread is on its second reload, so you have to go to the bottom of the page twice and load more, then go back to the beginning to see your posts.

scot link

3/13/2016 06:39:02 pm

For what it's worth, there is a Steve Di Marzo jr. who is with NEARA (the New England Antiques Research Assoc.). He's listed as the coordinator for Rhode Island, and his Lindiken lists him as an "stone structure researcher". I didn't bother looking any further, but if you try a google search I'm sure you can find the same info and possibly more. And no, I'm not Wolter, just the same first name. I

3/14/2016 02:45:35 am

Makes me wonder if wolter was attempting to relay a conversation he may have privately with this dimarzo guy, and weirdly staged it. Truly bizarre either way. It sounds as if steve sent the professor of Cincinnati an email of support for wolter and against williams. Yet the prose is dead ringer for wolter and the post is under Wolters account...wth

3/13/2016 09:26:48 pm

How recently has Wolter joined the Freemasons? Cause in the following link it says he was raised to Master Mason status last year at Wayzata Lodge No. 205:

http://www.mn-masons.org/sites/mn-masons.org/files/MN%20Mason%20Jan%20Feb%202016.pdf