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? 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.
Reply
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.
Reply
Time Machine
3/8/2016 11:12:52 am
>>> peer review to at two scholarly Masonic bodies<<<
Reply
Time Machine
3/8/2016 11:23:13 am
>>medieval quasi-Templar<<
Reply
Time Machine
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
Reply
Only Me
3/8/2016 12:05:16 pm
"If you can do nothing but complain then by default, I win."
Reply
Time Machine
3/8/2016 12:17:47 pm
Doesn't Richard Nielsen believe the KRS is authentic but rejects Wolter's claims.
Reply
Only Me
3/8/2016 02:35:53 pm
I really don't know.
Time Machine
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.
Reply
Time Machine
3/8/2016 12:56:28 pm
LOL
DaveR
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.
Reply
Joe Scales
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.
Reply
Joe Scales
3/8/2016 02:10:40 pm
And the last bit that got cut off:
Reply
tm
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
Joe Scales
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.
Joe Scales
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."
tm
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.
Reply
Time Machine
3/8/2016 02:45:37 pm
>>>Two Scholarly Masonic Bodies<<<
Reply
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.
Reply
Time Machine
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.
Time Machine
3/8/2016 04:32:02 pm
Hey Uncle Ron,
tm
3/8/2016 08:15:50 pm
Poor Bobo. Tries so hard, but just can't grasp the concept of clever repartee.
David Bradbury
3/8/2016 04:25:52 pm
Scott Wolter: "What legitimate facts do you have to refute my geological work?"
Reply
Ph
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.
Reply
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.
Reply
Clint Knapp
3/8/2016 04:57:43 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.
Reply
Clint Knapp
3/8/2016 05:06:17 pm
Doule-post, somehow. Sorry about that.
Reply
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.
Reply
DaveR
3/9/2016 07:47:30 am
I wonder if he replied "Take that you poopy pants!"
Reply
V
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."
Reply
Joe Scales
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?
Reply
DaveR
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.
Reply
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.
Reply
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.
Reply
DaveR
3/9/2016 09:09:58 am
Isn't he having that reviewed by scholars at ToyRUs?
Reply
tm
3/9/2016 12:39:42 pm
Show some sensitivity! The man's career is still recovering from lead poisoning. ;)
DaveR
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:
Reply
John
3/12/2016 01:28:12 pm
“Scott Wolter February 12, 2016 at 1:05 PM
Reply
EasyE
3/13/2016 01:17:28 am
Ck out the sentence structuring...Scott regularly starts out his paragraphs with transitional phrases such as:
Reply
John
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.
Reply
John
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:
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.
John
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.
John
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.
Joe Scales
3/13/2016 11:02:22 pm
John, 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
Reply
EasyE
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
Reply
John
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:
Reply
Debbie
8/1/2017 09:50:22 am
I like eggs!
Reply
Your comment will be posted after it is approved.
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorI am an author and researcher focusing on pop culture, science, and history. Bylines: New Republic, Esquire, Slate, etc. There's more about me in the About Jason tab. Newsletters
Enter your email below to subscribe to my newsletter for updates on my latest projects, blog posts, and activities, and subscribe to Culture & Curiosities, my Substack newsletter.
Categories
All
Terms & ConditionsPlease read all applicable terms and conditions before posting a comment on this blog. Posting a comment constitutes your agreement to abide by the terms and conditions linked herein.
Archives
February 2025
|