Scott Wolter Radio Appearance Accidentally Exposes History Channel and A+E Untruths

5/22/2013

Last week Scott Wolter appeared on Red Ice Radio, a program run by Henrik Palmgren, a Swedish conspiracy theorist. I didn’t say anything about it last week because, as you might guess, I was a bit preoccupied with A+E’s cease and desist order. Now that I’ve had time to listen to the program, I was shocked by how Wolter accidentally revealed some rather disingenuous goings on over at A+E Networks, the parent of History and H2.

Most of Wolter’s interview was a recap of his Hooked X® book and the first season of America Unearthed, which I will not revisit. Below are some of the other highlights along with my thoughts about Wolter’s comments on Red Ice Radio.

Early on in the show, Wolter accused academics of engaging in a conspiracy to suppress the truth. (I know.) But this time he specifically accused academia and skeptics of operating out of a nefarious sense of politics and religious conservatism, which is suppressing Kensington Rune Stone research:

…why these people have no interest in exploring this leads me to believe there is more going on that just stupidity, and quite frankly, Henrik, I don’t think these people are that stupid. I know they’re not that stupid. So why are they acting this way? […] People are going to call me a conspiracy theorist, but I can tell you that in my own mind I think I understand what part of the reason is. Part of it has to do with politics, and part of it has to do with religion because the guys that came over here were fugitive Knights Templar. […] These guys, whose true ideology I think is symbolized by the “Hooked X®,” had every reason to come over here…

Shortly after, Wolter gave away the real reason he ran crying to A+E’s lawyers that I was “copying” his book design. It turns out he has another self-published book coming out next month:

I have a new book coming out in about a month. It’s also a “Hooked X®” book. It’s a continuation of that, but it’s called Akhenaten to the Founding Fathers: Mysteries of the Hooked X®, and this ideology goes all the way back to Egypt, [and] I think people are going to be shocked when they read what I’ve written in my new book, which is a continuation of the old book, but I think they’re also going to go, “this makes sense.”

Since the old book didn’t make any sense, I can’t see how this new one will, though I look forward to hearing how Wolter is going to branch out into Egyptian history. Poor Akhenaton. But guess what: Wolter’s new book, which has not yet been published, has a blue cover with a map of America that looks suspiciously similar to my book cover in that they are not really very similar except in general concept. Could he have copied me? Of course not, but neither did I copy him. Blue happens to be a fairly popular color. His new book also has the words “America Unearthed” on the cover without any indication that the book is not endorsed by A+E. He also uses the America Unearthed tagline in the book description without a word of complaint from A+E. Someone needs to stop him! But, obviously, they never will. Hypocrites.

…theoretically you could lay claim to the entire Mississippi and Missouri watershed to the south and the Red River-Hudson Bay watershed to the north—that’s about half the continent over here. Why am I the first person to bring this up? People say, [sarcasm] why would they go all the way over there? Did you ever stop to think that maybe logic would tell you they did it for a reason? Start using your heads!

OK, let’s do that. The Rune Stone, taken at face value, said that a group of mixed Swedes and Norse were attacked by unnamed people in 1362. It says nothing about claiming any land, and I can’t think of a land claim that begins by urging people to stay away from the bloodthirsty, violent people trying to kill us all.

Next, Wolter returns to his theme that professors are irresponsible assholes as well as part of a conspiracy to impose orthodoxy:

If I do something stupid and I’m ethical (sic) I could lose my job and potentially I could go to jail. OK? What accountability does a tenured professor have? […] They’re basically autonomous; they don’t have to answer to anybody.

That job would of course be concrete structural testing, not Jesus Bloodline speculation. Wolter attended an actual university, worked with professors, and doesn’t seem to understand anything about tenure. But that’s OK because he believes that the internet will save history from domination by professionals: “With the instant transfer of information, this stuff [conventional history] is all going to crumble.” Fortunately, the same internet lets us see what Wolter says on Swedish radio.

Hilariously, and un-ironically, he derides academics for their “arrogance, hubris, agendas, and protecting turfs and the politics of people.” He then reveals how deeply he is saturated in the Dan Brown conspiracy worldview by parroting the plot of Brown’s new book, Inferno, as a deep insight of his own: “I think as a species we are at a critical juncture. We’re at seven billion people right now and growing, and I think everybody who is honest realizes we can’t keep going like this. If we don’t do something about this population problem nature will.”

But here’s the kicker. Last month, I retracted a story after History sent a spokesperson to deny that the network had ever met with Wolter about the religious theories on his program. On background the network denied that they had any knowledge of the religious themes of the show or that Wolter had ever discussed offending any part of the audience. The network made it known that they wanted this story corrected immediately and told me on background that the program came to them from a five minute “sizzle reel” and that no one at the network had screened episodes, had any concerns about its content, or were aware anyone might have any concerns about the content.

Well, I don’t feel the need to honor their background request anymore because it turns out all of that was untrue. How do I know this? Scott Wolter said so last week. Take a gander:

That’s what we’re [America Unearthed] trying to do, get the truth out there and then let the chips fall where they may. […] I give History Channel and H2 a lot of credit because I’ve sat down with, you know, uh, the head of the network, and I looked him in the eye, and I said ‘You guys, you know, this isn’t for the faint of heart. You know, we’re going to be hitting people between the eyes and we’re going to hit them hard. I mean when you start talking about people’s faith, about Jesus being married to Mary Magdalene and all of this. I mean this is heavy stuff, and it’s very disturbing to many people, and we’re not trying to offend anybody, we’re not trying to … I just want to know what happened. That’s where I’m coming from.’ And I said, ‘Look, it’s all hands on deck. You’re either all in or you’re not. Are you guys in?’ And they said, ‘We’re in.’ So I really appreciate that support because I’m sure there are a lot of other networks out there that would say ‘We’re not going there.’ And somebody has to stand up. Somebody has to say it, and what the hell? I’ve got a big mouth. I’ll say it.”

Just as long as no one else with a big mouth calls him out on it.

So, while my original source mischaracterized the meeting as a request for an apology (an error of interpretation), all of the facts—that Wolter met with executives, that they discussed the religious content of the show, and that Wolter expressed that he had no intention of offending anyone—were completely and totally true. Yet History denied all of them. Therefore, we can either choose to believe Wolter, who is clearly self-aggrandizing here, or the History spokesperson. Both can’t be telling the truth, but since they’ve already tried to sue me once, I’ll leave it to you to decide who the liar is.

63 Comments

B L

5/22/2013 09:34:09 am

Hey Jason. I just wanted to clarify a little bit without detracting from your overall message here. The Kensington Runestone does not say anything specifically about an attack by natives. It simply states that when a party returned from fishing they found their comrades "dead and red with blood". Of course many assume that this means they were attacked and killed by natives, but other theories exist. One interesting theory (assuming the KRS is authentic) is that members of the party died of the black plague (the fishing expedition could have lasted a number of days). Another theory is that ethnically different members of the group may have succumbed to rivalry and in-fighting. I just wanted to point out that no specific reference to native populations exists on the stone.

5/22/2013 09:56:11 am

BL- you are absolutely correct, it is not stated who or why they found supposed ? comrades dead, red with blood. I have always wondered why people jump to that-even Jason.

Jason Colavito link

5/22/2013 10:02:34 am

I can't speak for everyone, but part of the reason for the inference is the knowledge that no non-Native settlements have ever been found in the area, which suggests the conclusion that the only other people who could have done it were Native Americans. However, this is an assumption, and if you're willing to entertain the idea that Minnesota was chock-a-block with European cultures, I guess anyone could have been behind it.

5/22/2013 10:00:55 am

You're absolutely right; I shouldn't have included an inference in the description, so I have amended the text above to remove the inference. Personally, I'd pin it on laser-wielding aliens.

5/22/2013 10:10:05 am

thanks for amending it. Too many times one sees this type of thing written and people take it farther and farther, forgetting that is was only an assumption of the writer in the first place written as fact.

5/22/2013 10:40:35 am

I'm skeptical when it comes to the laser-wielding aliens. But, I'm forced to admit there is as much proof for your hypothesis as there is for Scott Wolter's 70+ year old band of geriatric Templar explorers.

Gunn

5/22/2013 12:35:46 pm

Actually, the KRS does refer to a mission of land acquisition. I noticed Wolter in the radio interview didn't use the best and newest translation of the message on the KRS. The translation by Hendrik Williams and Dr. Richard Nielsen (2010) speaks of land acquisition, not a search party, for instance, as some have tried to say.

Wolter, too, hypothesized in his X book about the ten men dying of disease, I guess for politically correct reasons. Sorry, but the disease theory doesn't hold up to scrutiy...or logic. If a party of 20 men left for a fishing trip one day's journey away from where the KRS was found, that means they were all traveling and camped together. The next day or so, half stayed back at camp while the other half went fishing (and lived to tell about it).

Story-book problem conclusion: how could exactly half die and exactly half live, in two nearly separate groups, when they had all been together just hours earlier? The notion is preposterous. Disease has to incubate. By traveling up the Chippewa River a day's journey north, the men came closer to Native American habitation nearer the fishing lakes. They posed a threat to families and to favored land.

Obviously, we need to take for message of the runestone for what it says. Adding disease into the picture as the reason for the 10 men dying, given all the available clues, is foolish. Logic can and should dictate on this one. I stated before that I also believe land acquisition was the primary reason for all the stoneholes and carvings in SD as well. This goes along with what the KRS actually says, by proper and modern translation.

In effect, I agree with SW that the KRS was associated with a land claim, though I'm not sure exactly what kind. I believe the runestone was added to the Runestone Hill site after the stoneholes had already been carved encircling the hill. In other words, they knew someone might be coming back to that site, and they would see the runestone memorial, which seems to have been initially set upright before falling over and being covered over with soil buildup.

5/22/2013 12:52:51 pm

So, Jason was correct to assume that the 10 men were killed by Native Americans. I would go further and say that they were probably scalped, which did most likely occur back then, as also when first contact was made with Europeans. It is the most likely scenerio for the bloody description of horror. This is speculation, of course, but based on history and logic.

(It's okay to be politically correct when it's correct, but not when it's not.)

John McKay link

5/22/2013 04:51:46 pm

Scalping was not a common among Native Americans before European contact, though it did happen, and one of the best documented was in South Dakota. In most places where it was common later on, Europeans were active participants if not the originators of the practice. The common story is that the Spanish (or French) introduced it when the offered bounties for killing Indians. Scalps were an easy way to prove a kill without bringing dead bodies back to the courthouse, which would have produced a public hygiene problem. As I said, blaming the Spanish and French is the common story, here. The English colonies also paid scalp bounties. Neither scalped nor not scalped helps the Kensington narrative.

5/23/2013 03:00:33 am

John, you came in a bit late on this one, as I already posted about the SD mass scalping hours ago. Also, truth helps the Kensington narrative, whatever the truth is. If scalping is part of the story, then it is part of the story. Details matter in history, even if politically incorrect.

Shauna Hebbeler

7/2/2019 11:03:56 pm

VALERIE PLAME as a source?? Seriously??

5/22/2013 03:21:03 pm

Gunn, while the location of the fishing spot was a day's journey from the camp the KRS is not specific as to the duration of the fishing expedition. You may be correct about a violent encounter with natives, but disease is just as plausible. The bubonic plague is very fast acting once symptoms appear. These symptoms can include rapid skin decay and the continuous vomiting of blood. If we take the KRS at face value without reading anything else into it, then either scenario would make sense. (Of course, all of this analysis is assuming the KRS is real).

5/22/2013 03:46:07 pm

You are correct, BL, in that the runestone was not specific as to the duration of the fishing expedition, however, we should probably suppose that the 20 men were traveling and camping together. How is it that exactly 10 men--everyone--who stayed back at camp died, yet all 10 who went fishing lived?

Again, the disease of bubonic plague does not work this way, when considering the incubation period. Victimization would have been random amongst the 20 men, not exclusive to just one of the two groups. This is proof of disease not being the cause...statistical proof, if you will, so I will have to disagree that disease is just as plausible as murder. REDRUM!

5/22/2013 03:55:15 pm

The bubonic plague kills about 30% of those it infects. It is possible that the ten found dead and red with blood were left behind by the fishermen because they were too ill to go fishing. 10 men would be roughly 30% of the total number in the group. Again, a native encounter was possible, but other possibilities exist (just not laser-wielding aliens).

5/22/2013 04:01:54 pm

Or, what if, by this time in the journey, literally years from home, some of the Goths were not getting along with some of the Norse. While some of the more level-headed members of the group are out fishing those left behind decide enough is enough and begin trading insults. Insert bloody, unsurvivable melee here.

I suspect we'll soon be asked to continue this conversation somewhere else. Sorry, Jason. Didn't mean to hijack your blog.

5/22/2013 04:19:48 pm

Sorry, BL, but also, the plague hit Europe in 1347, which is fifteen years before the carving of the Runestone. I don't think the epidemic was that bad in the interior of America in 1362, especially after being away from the main ship for two weeks.

So, ten men fought it out to the absolute death of ten men?

So, BL, but it looks like the men were scalped. No big deal at the time. Commonplace.

5/22/2013 04:00:09 pm

http://books.google.com/books?id=BPdgiysIVcgC&pg=PA68&dq#v=onepage&q&f=false

This example of mass scalping hits pretty close to home (MN), and also fits in with the medieval timeframe. Brutality and scalping were commonplace. (But no worse than other places and times in history.)

Poker Jim

5/22/2013 06:22:07 pm

And I said, ‘Look, it’s all hands on deck. You’re either all in or you’re not. Are you guys in?’
...was Wolter sailing or playing poker with these people?

Christopher Randolph

5/22/2013 07:57:55 pm

Wow, a whole series of posts between a group of people who think that mythical Vikings were killed by disease and a series who think mythical Vikings were killed by native North Americans. It's like reading Star Wars geeks debate Boba Fett's off-camera social life.

Bonus points for ascribing not mentioning the scalping no one on the continent actually did in that century to "political correctness!" Unbelievable.

Coridan Miller

5/23/2013 12:59:52 am

The Star Wars geek discussion would be more productive and less conjectural.

5/23/2013 02:08:23 am

No one here is referencing Vikings at all, mythical or otherwise. If productiveness is a prerequisite to chiming in on this blog, then I promise never to reply again if the ever-so-self-important Christopher would agree to the same.

5/23/2013 02:18:08 am

BL- there are many 'spin doctors' here- your point is valid

5/23/2013 03:24:54 am

BL, some folks coming here don't like to learn. I'm not saying you're one of them. Christopher spoke of Vikings above, when it has been said over and over again that the Vikings were out of the picture by 250 years by the time the KRS was carved.

BL, I simply don't agree with you or Wolter about disease, but that's okay. JJ, the spin doctors are the ones who try to make the KRS say something it isn't saying, whether of mooring stoneholes, or disease, or search parties, or whatever.

As long as people are still learning, the debate is valid. Others can skip the dialogue if they're not interested. Myself, I find aliens unimpressive; geeky stuff.

I constantly see attachments being made to the KRS. The latest case here, on subject, is over Wolter's improper use of the hooked X to promote the Knights Templar ideology and the Holy Bloodline ideology. So we delved into another aspect of the KRS story. My original intention was to show that runes have a history of abuse, and the hooked X is still being abused as a runic symbol. The KRS has many hooked X's on it.

I'm a runestone message purist, if you will. The interpretation of the message is everything...just as looking at original language in the Bible, for instance, is sometimes good and necessary to better understanding. Nothing is gained when people ascribe events to the KRS that didn't happen.

At least we didn't go into another lengthy round about stoneholes, though it was fun re-visiting the subject briefly. I got over two hundred page-views about the KRS and stoneholes the other day, and I now always get over a hundred page-views, this all as a result of this blog. People are interested, though most don't comment.

Jason brought the Native Americans up...blame him! Ha! Ha! He looks like a Mohican Lumberjack...great new photo!

5/23/2013 03:35:51 am

I think you mean to say that when the hoax stone was carved the Vikings had been out of the picture for 900 or so years.

Mike M.

5/23/2013 02:20:02 pm

If you haven't seen the testimony of Walter Gran about how his father helped carve the Kensington Stone with Olof Ohman, you can find it here: http://collections.mnhs.org/MNHistoryMagazine/articles/45/v45i04p152-156.pdf

Jens

5/24/2013 12:57:32 am

even for the year on the stone vikings are too early. Viking age were about 750-1050, 300 years previously!
oh and i've seen real viking runestones. There's one 5 miles from my house. They always say the name of who had the stone carved.
And is usually to commemorate family members. The majority were made around 950-1050 I believe. Excuse the spelling my english isn't perfect. Not too mention the Larsson papers Etc. Etc. Etc.

Scotty Roberts link

5/26/2013 10:17:55 am

I think that the claim of "hoax" has long been debunked. Simply go to the forensics on the carvings and you will find that the dating precedes the supposed confessed hoaxer by several centuries.

The hoax thing is the ready hand-out for skeptics.

5/23/2013 02:38:01 pm

Mike M- you mean the infamous "deathbed" confession.. he didn't die for , what, 6 more years? I don't think you would bet your reputation on that tape/testimony...or would you go on record of endorsing that as 'truth'?

Mike M

5/23/2013 04:10:27 pm

Deathbed or not, it was testimony by a man who lived at the time and in the neighborhood and said he was involved in the hoax. It's called evidence.

5/24/2013 12:13:00 am

when you see inconsistancies -he wasn't dying, his relationship with the Ohmans, - then the testimony must be looked upon in another way. You are right, it must be looked upon- weighed, and then call it evidence if it truly was. I talked with people who knew the son-they were from Holmes City-, who wrote down this 'confession'- sure leaves a lot of room for doubt. Did Blegen, it isn't shown in his books, go to the work talking to people who knew the Grans? I am sure this looked like a juicy grape to him- how far did he go to establish their story?

5/24/2013 05:17:43 am

Yeah, what a "death-bed" confession. I just read the above linked article, and it seems fairly obvious that jealousy and alcoholism were involved, and not from Olaf. Way too many third-person accounts to be reliable. The most obvious flaw to these false charges of forgery by Blegen and Co. is that the runestone actually did have a very distinct root wrapping mark on it, showing that it had been in the growing root system for a considerable length of time.

5/24/2013 06:24:47 am

"Way too many third-person accounts to be reliable."

So on that you're suddenly a skeptic?

A hoax confession seems stretching the truth and speculating beyond reason, but Scandinavians making a beeline to settle the center of North America yet leaving none of the artifacts normally associated with human settlement seems perfectly reasonable and not overly reliant on speuclation?

Got it.

5/24/2013 01:55:17 pm

Christopher, I will entertain you on this one, since you keep bringing it up: what kind of human settlement evidences are you wanting to find?

The many stoneholes and other evidences, including fire-steels and war weapons are probably more associated with initial land carving-up, not actual settlement. For now, I see no evidence of settlement, only a sort of territory marking-up spree of a Scandinavian nature.

Do you want bottle-caps and gum wrappers? Forget it. I think it's remarkable that so many seemingly related "medieval Scandinavian" items were already found in this general area, plus the KRS itself--which is probably more a memorial stone than a land claim, I believe...it seems to have been purposely erected within a circle of many stoneholes, probably made earlier and known about in association with claiming land.

Sooner or later, something with satisfactory medieval Scandinavian provenance will be found around here, and that will change everything with the skeptics about the KRS.

You seem fairly intelligent, Opher. It seems like you could communicate without being so intentionally crass.

5/24/2013 04:46:48 pm

I couldn't care much less whether or not some crackpot hiding behind an anonymous pseudonym rates my perceived intelligence highly or not.

The mere fact that you need to ask what sort of evidence is found for even minor and temporary human habitation at every other site in the world displays a marked degree of ignorance on your end.

5/26/2013 12:14:45 pm

crass = grossly stupid.

Opher, aka crabby, how can someone be fairly intelligent and crass at the same time? How silly of me. So then, can you explain to readers why you constantly come across as crass?

Based on your comments, you seem to understand the art of bullying very well, which makes your seemingly purposeful negative attitude even more perplexing. Are you one of the mean people "out there" who just plain suck?

As much as I've given you a second and third chance here to respond decently, you really do seem incorrigible: incurably bad and depraved, not readily improved. Was "vile" going too far before? Apparently not, as you feel a need to prove over and over again.

5/26/2013 03:07:04 pm

One could do worse than to come across as Crass:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crass

Why don't you answer Keith and my questions about artifacts? Would you like to discuss what you claim is an archeological find or not?

Keith

5/26/2013 08:06:07 am

"No non-Native American artifacts dating from before 1492 have been recovered under controlled, professionally conducted archaeological investigations at any great distance from the east coast of the continent; and with current techniques, the dating of any holes cut into rocks in the region is as uncertain as the dating of the Kensington stone itself."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kensington_Runestone#Other_artifacts.3F

The wikipedia article mentions a single firesteel found in the late 1800s which looks Norse, the triangular holes in rocks, and this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V%C3%A9rendrye_Runestone

Now, admittedly, I am using wikipedia to look for evidence, but at least I am taking the initiative. Looking for other vikings in North America, there is this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beardmore_Relics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maine_penny

But their discovery is generally accepted as being hoaxed (as in, genuine artifacts that were planted).
Help me out here, Gunn, where are the piles of weapons and tools and shields and cooking utensils and cups and animal bones that archaeologists expect people to leave behind in the remains of their settlements?

5/26/2013 10:05:24 am

Don't misread my comment, I know you don't believe that there were permanent settlements (or at least you admit there is no evidence for any), but even in a temporary land-carving camp there would be garbage, there would be food and drink, there would be clothes and homes. These are all the kinds of things archaeologists look for (archaeology as a science is probably a good 50% digging up and examining pottery shards).

Scandinavian camps, their tools and their pottery, are all noticeably different from Native American settlements, tools and pottery. Where is it all?

5/27/2013 04:53:33 am

Keith: Based on studies of stonehole patterns in SD, it appears that a large-scale "landing area" of proposed settlement took place in the specific area of the Whetstone River. (The Whetstone used to empty into the beginning of the Minnesota River just below Big Stone Lake before the Whetstone was diverted into the lake itself in the 1930's.)

Keith, many metal artifacts have been found in the general SD/MN region, but as you and I both know, none have acceptable provenance. But, just because they don't have this provenance doesn't mean some of them aren't "real."

Within this area of the Whetstone River are dozens upon dozens of stoneholes, associated with a handful of known rock carvings, which also have no certain provenance, though they are clearly medieval Scandinavian images. I have proposed that the carvings, some as yet unfound or put away for safekeeping, represent specific "owners" of the stonehole-marked land within the Whetstone River region.

Where are the evidences? Well, the main evidence is the Kensington Runestone itself. The next main evidences are the unblasted stoneholes in hundreds of rocks in SD/MN, which are aged and triangulated for the most part, and not connected with the late 1800's migration of Scandinavians into the region. They have to be explained, not ignored. Currently, they are being studied in different ways, and not by myself only.

Undoubtedly, Keith, there are further evidences hidden beneath the ground that no one has yet found. I once studied the aging and accumulation of soils, in connection with metal detecting, and discovered that soil buildup varies immensely from spot to spot. On a high, rocky windswept area, there may be almost no buildup at all, while lush, lower valleys will build soil depths much faster. Most any evidences you want, Keith, are buired under several inches to a few feet or more of soil buildup.

Most things carried back in 1362 would not have been considered disposable, but necessary as tools or weapons. Certainly there were campsites, but the campsites are hidden beneath a depth of soil. There isn't much construction going on in the Whetstone River valley area, so not much has been found or recognized by area farmers as potentially medieval. I have no doubt but that evidences are put away in farmhouses and barns in the area, and much is yet to be discovered. Perhaps more will become know about stonehole patterns in the future. For instance, why are three rocks in the same spot sometimes marked with stoneholes? I've seen this several times, including at Runestone Hill. Maybe they symbolize the center of a particular claim, who knows? I'm only innocently guessing.

Medieval Scandinavian land speculation in the middle of North Americia has been proposed, yes, in connection with the KRS, too. All evidences so far have no acceptable provenance, but the preponderance of evidences points to this notion of medieval European exploration. The further evidences you desire, Kieth, are waiting to be discovered. But, until then, there is still plenty of basis for believing in the authenticity of the KRS. All of these things, taken in total, cannot be dismissed as a huge conspiritorial hoax.

Even though I believe in the genuineness of the KRS, I am a de-bunker of the "Viking" connection to it, along with dumb idea that any of these stoneholes in this region were for mooring Viking ships. Truly, I am between some rocks and a hard place here, but I don't mind...except for the occasional "mean and nasty" remarks by Opher, who always manages to foul the atmosphere. The evidences you desire, too, are still beneath the soil, Opher, waiting to be discovered. Imagine that.

5/27/2013 06:29:18 pm

Just to be clear, your answer to the question "Where are the artifacts that accompany the stone holes and the runestone?' is "There are stoneholes and a runestone."

So you have nothing.

Why is it do you imagine if any archeologist could immediately make a lifetime's work reputation for themselves at a time when there are more of them than there are jobs that there isn't a single archeologist looking for or finding these artifacts?

RLewis

5/26/2013 03:10:08 am

My favorite SW claim from the radio show was that they used runes on the KRS because runes were easier to carve into stones than others characters (languages),
I guess that explains why you cannot find any other languages carved in stone. Anywhere. Ever.

scotty Roberts link

5/26/2013 10:19:23 am

Wasn't that just one in a series of speculations as to why runes may have been used? I don't believe that was Wolter's final conclusion.

5/27/2013 07:18:11 pm

That was an awfully long post, and at the end of it I am left feeling no differently. All you did was repeat everything you had said previously, but with more words and Ancient Aliens style "but COULD it be Norsemen?" speculation.

Is there any evidence of temporary human habitation which you can tie to the 14th century Norse? Any coins, any pottery, any burials, any rubbish dumps, any camps?
Or are there only dubiously sourced "metal artifacts"? Provenance is rather important, Gunn, especially since there are known examples of people hoaxing Norse discoveries in North America, and indeed in the area of the KRS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AVM_Runestone, and the Beardmore artifacts I linked to before). Of course there could be evidence there, hidden away somewhere, but if I cant see any then I cant assume any exists; that would be ridiculous of me.

If, like you seem to admit, there is no strong evidence other than the KRS itself, and you are "only innocently guessing" when you say stoneholes are boundary markers for land claims, then what drives you to believe in it? It seems as though you have started from the position that the KRS is proof of pre-Columbian contact, and then gone out searching for evidence to back up that position. And as we all know, if you look hard enough for evidence of something, you will probably convince yourself you have found it. What you have found are some holes in some stones. That's it. Remove the runestone from the equation and the stoneholes mean nothing. Remove the "land acquisition" translation you prefer, and the stoneholes mean nothing.

I put it to you that there is an explanation which does not require the extraordinary claim of a lost Scandinavian voyage to Minnesota, and that this explanation requires far less speculation and assumption. The KRS is a hoax, the stoneholes are all colonial or later, and the obviously Scandinavian carvings you have seen came about in a similar fashion to the "AVM Runestone" eg. pranksters or hoaxers carving Scandinavian images into rocks in the area long after the original discovery of the KRS. There are examples of people doing this all across America with cultures other than the Norse, and so I don't think this is an assumption which would dull Occam's Razor too much. It is the simplest answer, the one which requires the least fantastical speculation, and therefore the one I choose to believe.

If, one day, a team from a local university discovers a 14th century obviously Scandinavian settlement or burial site, then I will eat humble pie. But until then dateless stoneholes and dodgy firesteels really aren't going to do it for me I'm afraid.

5/27/2013 07:32:03 pm

"If, one day, a team from a local university discovers a 14th century obviously Scandinavian settlement or burial site, then I will eat humble pie."

And that team would eat... rather well!

That's the amazing bit to me. Let's assume that all archeologists are miserable people in it for the cash. Just awful human beings with the basest motivations. What would then be gained by suppressing a career-skyrocketing find, and blowing open the academic conspiracy to boot?

Like everything else the 'alternative' history people believe, this lacks even internal logic. If archeologists are greedy and petty they'd be digging up the whole upper midwest to be the first to rewrite history... that is, if anyone thought there was anything to dig up.

titus pullo

5/28/2013 02:56:05 am

I do have one question which bothers me quite a bit regarding norse visiting the midwest...why? If you look at European exploration and settlement of North America...post Columbus...it was on the East coast..not Minn. or South Dakota or a thousand miles inland...I would expect land claims and evidence on the east coast...why go all that way....

5/28/2013 05:05:35 am

titus pullo, I'm thinking it may be possible that a group interested in geographical exactitude may have wanted to begin a new empire (or whatever) from within. We could be dealing with sacred geometry in some way. Some have hypothesized a possible Cistercian connection, which could have entailed this kind of "nutty" exactitude.

Good question, though. Why would a group of medieval-era Europeans decide to carve up land for a future return, out in the exact middle of nowhere? (It's still kind of out in the middle of nowhere.)

One thing: in order to be able to claim marked land in the future, marked boundaries would be needed, and so back then, rocks would be needed: stonehole rocks, for land boundaries, like back in Europe. Some good ideas just don't go away.

Right now, for me, life is "IS" a stonehole circle, which seems like a good idea, since life is a circle anyway.

5/28/2013 04:49:52 am

Gentlemen (you, too, Opher) Hook these communications up with the original letter to SA I posted much earlier, getting a few complaints. Perhaps this conclusion to the email conversation will serve to explain why it is so difficult to discover new archaeological evidences. It's not for my lack of trying, personally. (I never did hear back from the Runestone Museum; at least SA took the time to respond.)

(Read from the bottom up to this point.)

____________________

Thanks for the invite, but I am too busy with mandatory tasks concerning Indian burials and prehistoric sites. I also don't have any funds for radiocarbon dating in my budget. I enjoy just being an everyday archaeologist.

Scott Anfinson
State Archaeologist

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: whitefox3@comcast.net [whitefox3@comcast.net]
Sent: Monday, May 20, 2013 2:17 PM
To: Anfinson, Scott (ADM)
Cc: whitefox3@comcast.net
Subject: Re: Reporting of Archaeological Objects

Exactly, Scott. Picture your professional representatives going to the site I described and performing the task of isolating some of these organics. Because they are professionals, verifiable provenance would be valid. Two very large and deep horizontal stoneholes, such as the Sauk Lake Altar Rock has, with a nicely sloping rock face, would have produced, I think, a few handfuls of white rock chips, dust, etc., which would be clearly indicated within the dark soil. The task of your professionals would be to try to gather some organics to test, which would be directly below the chips or even mixed in. If the chips can be dated by collateral organics, the stoneholes are dated. Don't be surprised if they show medieval-era aging. Scott, you have the opportunity of being sort of a rock-star State Archaeologist, helping to prove pre-1600's European exploration into this neck-of-the-woods. You may even be hailed as a sort of alternative history hero, more open-minded than thought academically possible for someone in your position. Please consider doing this work. I believe I know how to contact the owners of the land and the huge rock, not far from Sauk Lake. I can take you to the location. You can see rare photos of it at www.hallmarkemporium.com/discoveries. Thanks for answering my email, and for perhaps even helping true State of MN history along. - Bob

PS: If you go to Jason Colavito's blog, you will see comments I just made about the possible meaning of linking stoneholes and carved rock images together in SD.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "Scott Anfinson (ADM)" <scott.anfinson@state.mn.us>
To: whitefox3@comcast.net
Sent: Monday, May 20, 2013 1:48:24 PM
Subject: RE: Reporting of Archaeological Objects

Only organics can be radiocarbon dated and these organics must have verifiable provenance in order to be regarded as valid.

Scott Anfinson
State Archaeologist

5/28/2013 01:42:53 pm

I think the reason the State Archaeologist is not interested in dating the so-called "altar rock" chips is because it would be impossible to establish that a date on the organics in the soil had any necessary relationship to the stone chips, if any were actually found. The first problem would be determining if the chips actually came from the holes drilled into the boulder (it appeared to me when I visited it to be a large glacial erratic). Being that the sediments here are till, there could be stone chips from the drilled stone holes, as you suspect, or they could be from natural exfoliation from the boulder as it weathered. Or they could be from other rocks altogether.

The real problem is that taking organic material from the soil would be no guarantee that it was contemporaneous with any stone chips. The soil is a constantly developing medium with decaying plant and animal matter added daily. Taking a bulk organic sample of soil to date would probably cost in excess of $700.00, and it would almost certainly turn out to be recent, since modern organic matter is what you would find. Besides this, the upper levels of the soil are in an ongoing state of disturbance from burrowing insects, snakes, voles, ground squirrels, chipmunks, gophers and even larger animals such as badgers. Archaeologists will sometimes date bulk soil samples from paleosols (buried beneath layers of more recent sediment), but not modern soil horizons, that is, unless there is an actual archaeological feature present.

As for archaeologists actually going to a suspected medieval site in western Minnesota, I've done it, and all four that I visited or worked at proved to be nothing at all, or something other than medieval. Christopher Randolf's comment above is correct. If an archaeologist could actually find a medieval European settlement in Minnesota he or she could probably run for governor! The only reason not to look for them any more is because they're not there. (And my apologies for taking so much space).

5/28/2013 03:57:25 pm

Mike M says: "I think the reason the State Archaeologist is not interested in dating the so-called "altar rock" chips is because it would be impossible to establish that a date on the organics in the soil had any necessary relationship to the stone chips, if any were actually found."

Mike M, your opening sentence is erroneous, as the archaeologist stated his reason, and it wasn't that it would be impossible to establish a date on the organics in the soil. And you weren't that convincing by overlooking the probability of actually discovering the layer of rock chips.

Also, there are other opinions about age-testing soil, and there is the hope that other oganics would be found within the layer of soil and white rock ships. In medieval times, a "scooping chisel" was used when carving holes, and we're talking about pulling out enough chips to fill several rolls of quarters, spilling down onto the ground. Possibly mixed in with that layer would be other oganics besides soil. However, age testing of soil is still possible under certain circumstances, using comparative techniques, and the price is lower than one would think. Here is an example, with a fast turn-around. (Some universities offer testing lab services, too.)

http://www.radiocarbon.com/details.htm

Bottom line: Mike M, you should have more faith in the scientific process, and not be quite so skeptical. We can open doors or close doors. And Opher aggrandizing a State Archaeologist? Only in jest. How could he be so kind?

Who said anything about settlements? I'm talking about carving up land for "would-be" future settlements. The settlements were planned for later. I believe that in the era of the Kensington Runestone, land was marked for future ownership and settlement, in rocks with holes, not unlike examples from medieval Europe. The plans fell through, and we see the leftover stoneholes. It really is that simple...and nothing to do with mooring Viking ships.

5/29/2013 02:48:53 am

Gunn -

Just wondering, hiding behind your anonymous handle, what is your background and profession?

Why haven't you gone into archeology and why aren't you doing the digs? I ask because you evidently already know more than everyone who is in the field currently.

5/29/2013 05:30:07 am

Thanks for recognizing my brilliance, Opher. My insightfullness immediately makes me wonder why you wonder about my anonymous handle...when most folks commenting on the blog use anonymous handles. Maybe it's because I was born on the same day as Ben Franklin, and he enjoyed using various pen-names. I guess I just can't help it.

You would only mock my background, Opher. However, I have a brand new kind of wind turbine currently for sale, for which you may be interested in a 5% finders fee on a sale price of $5M. I have a patent for a building-top double-enclosed wind turbine that eliminates the main objection to near-home wind turbines--which are the blades. I've eliminated objectionable blades, and folks will be able to have electricity supplied to homes, businesses, farms, etc., without even needing to be connected to the grid. Look Ma, no grid! 40% of my last electric bill was for transmission costs. (Again, the Ben Franklin in me as an inventor.)

www.hallmarkemporium.com. You can also see the debunking of a "wind folly" conspiratorial hoax.

Why haven't I gone into archaeology? Now in my 60's, why haven't I done a lot of things? Though I was always interested in history, Native Americans and archaeology, I never focused much bringing the subjects together until I became aware of the KRS, which, if nothing else, is extremely intriguing and not that far from where I live...just a few hours away.

Thank you for the generous comment about me evidently already knowing more than everyone who is in the field. It's true that I never came across my idea of radiocarbon-dating "organics" within the chips and powder residue from stoneholes as a viable way of dating the carving of the holes themselves, but this idea came only because of thinking about the subject more than the average person would. It's the doggedness that counts, in this case. (The same holds true with my brand new concept of a viable wind turbine for buildings in the better wind zones.)

I also like to come up with pithy sayings like Ben as a fellow writer of sorts. Here is an original: "You can lead an ass to the wind, but you can't make him think." (I wonder, should I trademark this phrase?)

Other than these two main interests, I'm just mostly a happy Grampa, diggin' it. You dig? Oh, I will help dig, Opher, given the opportunity to work with professionals who may want help, if it's in association with a possible medieval site. But for now, metal detecting is somewhat rewarding for this fading away old soldier.

Besides enjoying being addressed as Gunn, I like pointing out that I was a soldier, Opher. For my obituary, they will most likely put a little American flag by my smily face. Try not to be crass, you blog anarchist.

5/29/2013 07:19:52 am

As noted elsewhere, anyone can get a patent for anything whether it works or not, provided the design or process isn't directly copying a previous patent.

Of course when some people create something of benefit to humanity they don't always rush to the patent office:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=erHXKP386Nk

It's funny that you and Wolter and your kind like to take on the cloak of outsider rebels who are doing humanity favors by taking on the lies of greedy academics... yet at every turn you use government filings and court threats, patents and trademarks to lock up personal profit.

So the answer is that you have no background at all in archeology, and despite believing that you would go down in history as one of the most groundbreaking (no pun intended) people in the history of the field if your claims were true, you've done nothing personally to enter that field. Got it. And everyone else gets it.

5/29/2013 12:05:35 pm

Oh, I see you simply can't help yourself when it comes to taking a polite communications and twisting things around. This must be the method of a mad blog anarchist, and what a mental hell you must be in. Twist and shout. Everyone else now gets it, crabby: "I've fallen, and I can't get up!" Well, lash out. It's easy to be mean and nasty, but harder to be nice. Maybe you don't feel a need to be socially graceful. Maybe your mama never taught you how.

5/29/2013 01:21:03 pm

Opher says: (from a MOB-rat line) "I've never had any compunctions about being called a rat...the word don't bother me."

5/29/2013 11:38:33 am

I see now that it was somewhat pointless asking you for the type of evidence I did, Gunn, and I am sorry I put you on the spot like that. You just look at holes in rocks and go metal detecting, you aren't a serious researcher, an academic, or an archaeologist, and you aren't trying to masquerade as one like Wolter, Tsoukalos, Childress et al.

I'll take a different approach in light of this.

Since there is no evidence of habitation [yet discovered], and the stoneholes and carvings cannot be reliably dated (as says wikipedia, the state archaeologist you spoke to, and Mike), do you at least have reports of the clearly medieval Scandinavian carvings being there;
a) before the discovery of the KRS, or even better,
b) before European settlement of the area
If you could provide an account of stoneholes and identifiable carvings (preferably alongside a picture so the description and image can be compared) which fit one or both of these criteria then I would take your speculating more seriously.

5/29/2013 12:24:45 pm

Keith, no, I'm neither an academic or an archaeologist. I live in the general area of the KRS and I'm somewhat infatuated with the subject. Many of these "evidences" seem to be related, that's all, and I'm certainly not the only person living up here who believes there is probably a medieval Scandinavian history up here.

Actually, I have finally gotten tired of discussing the subject on this blog, and there's not anything much to add. The "evidences" are what they are: not a region-wide conspiracy against Columbus. I'm happy just to have helped debunk any Viking and mooring stones connection to the KRS. Helping to publicly debunk the notion of the hooked-x in relationship with a Holy Bloodline was a plus. I haven't wasted my time, only with Opher.

5/29/2013 04:06:25 pm

And again, you sidestep the question I asked.
I asked you if there was any evidence besides stoneholes and the KRS, and your reply was largely devoted to the significance of stoneholes and the KRS.
I asked you again if there was any evidence, specifically evidence that medieval Scandinavians had settled permanently or temporarily in the area which could be dated or had provenance. You said that nothing had any provenance but there might be some evidence somewhere.
I asked if there were any accounts of the carvings which you say are from the 14th century from before the discovery of the KRS, since there were a spate of hoaxes in North America and the MN area (the AVM and Elbow Lake runestones to name but two wikipedia lists) supporting various pre-Columbian contacts (including the Norse). Now you have grown tired of discussing the topic with me.

The "evidences" are what they are indeed; and what they are is (in the absolute kindest possible interpretation I can muster) pretty unconvincing. It isn't a region-wide conspiracy, it is a local flight of fancy. Like the Loch Ness Monster.

Like the man who spends his weekends with his telescope on top of a hill overlooking the loch, I hope you have a good time metal detecting around the countryside. Everyone needs a hobby.

5/30/2013 03:10:18 am

Keith, even I'm now surprised nobody in swooping in to complain against us. I appreciate that your tone is more friendly than Opher's, but you are still being unnecessarily offensive. If you care to read past blog entries, you'll see that I discussed other "evidences" at length. Jason can attest to this! Also, you want to keep talking about "settlement" and I told you I see no evidence of settlement, only a sort of "passing through," while carving up land for what I suppose was a planned return that never happened. This isn't the only example in history of plans falling apart.

Seriously, if you want to pursue the metal "evidences," look up the Kensington Runestone Museum. I've tried to get them to study the iron composition, and even offered to donate cash towards the effort: no answer. If you want to pursue the carvings, begin with the ship image from Copper Harbor, which is an EXACT image of a Norse vessel, complete with snake-heads. You'll see the link to my website in past blog posts. Then move on to the images shown in Wolter's X book, the images of the Scandinavian table-knife and the drinking horn. The latter appears very aged and is deeply carved and is an exact image of a medieval Scandinavian drinking horn.

Perhaps "JJ", whom I have never met personally, would be kind enough to affirm the existance of this carving for you, and she may even tell you when her family first became aware of the carving, which I can only say was apparently many years ago, and not recently, according to what she has indicated in the past. The carvings are found in "stonehole country."

Yes, Keith, everyone needs a good hobby, even the proverbial "fool on a hill." Maybe we should take turns with Opher being the village "blog" idiot. (Your cue, Opher....)

PS: I will no longer be posting after tomorrow, as new summer projects and activities must take over. I wish everyone well...any hard feelings will not linger long. Peace.

Matt Mc

5/30/2013 03:58:30 am

I really hate how this blog is always hijacked by Gunn's senseless repeated ramblings.

5/30/2013 06:57:19 am

Senseless ramblings? Matt McNutt, I really hate how this blog is always swooped in on and pooped on. Did you notice that someone was still asking questions? What did you just add? Nothing but fly-over, fly-by, drive-by bird-droppings.

Try adding something, instead of just making a jack-ass of yourself. Who are you to judge my communications, anyway? Nobody, I guess.

5/30/2013 07:03:16 am

I don't care to be as trivial to play the insult game. I also don't normally try to feed the trolls. You sir, however are just plain annoying.

5/30/2013 07:38:29 am

Of course, you are the one who is annoying, Matt McNutt. Where did you come from? Why are you playing the trivial insult game with me? Why did you even start it? You are just feeding the troll, who is in the mirror looking at you. You should find a better way of wasting your time, without bothering people with nonsensical and unimportant input.

5/30/2013 07:40:29 am

I had added this above: PS: I will no longer be posting after tomorrow, as new summer projects and activities must take over. I wish everyone well...any hard feelings will not linger long. Peace.

Why couldn't you have kept your yap shut for a day? Too hard?

Your comment will be posted after it is approved.