JASON COLAVITO
  • Home
  • Blog
  • Books
    • Legends of the Pyramids
    • The Mound Builder Myth
    • Jason and the Argonauts
    • Cult of Alien Gods >
      • Contents
      • Excerpt
      • Image Gallery
    • Foundations of Atlantis
    • Knowing Fear >
      • Contents
      • Excerpt
      • Image Gallery
    • Hideous Bit of Morbidity >
      • Contents
      • Excerpt
      • Image Gallery
    • Cthulhu in World Mythology >
      • Excerpt
      • Image Gallery
      • Necronomicon Fragments
      • Oral Histories
    • Fiction >
      • Short Stories
      • Free Fiction
    • JasonColavito.com Books >
      • Faking History
      • Unearthing the Truth
      • Critical Companion to Ancient Aliens
      • Studies in Ancient Astronautics (Series) >
        • Theosophy on Ancient Astronauts
        • Pyramidiots!
        • Edison's Conquest of Mars
      • Fiction Anthologies >
        • Unseen Horror >
          • Contents
          • Excerpt
        • Moon Men! >
          • Contents
      • The Orphic Argonautica >
        • Contents
        • Excerpt
      • The Faust Book >
        • Contents
        • Excerpt
      • Classic Reprints
      • eBook Minis
    • Free eBooks >
      • Origin of the Space Gods
      • Ancient Atom Bombs
      • Golden Fleeced
      • Ancient America
      • Horror & Science
  • Articles
    • Skeptical Xenoarchaeologist Newsletter >
      • Volumes 1-10 Archive >
        • Volume 1 Archive
        • Volume 2 Archive
        • Volume 3 Archive
        • Volume 4 Archive
        • Volume 5 Archive
        • Volume 6 Archive
        • Volume 7 Archive
        • Volume 8 Archive
        • Volume 9 Archive
        • Volume 10 Archive
      • Volumes 11-20 Archive >
        • Volume 11 Archive
        • Volume 12 Archive
        • Volume 13 Archive
        • Volume 14 Archive
        • Volume 15 Archive
        • Volume 16 Archive
        • Volume 17 Archive
        • Volume 18 Archive
        • Volume 19 Archive
        • Volume 20 Archive
      • Volumes 21-30 Archive >
        • Volume 21 Archive
        • Volume 22 Archive
    • Television Reviews >
      • Ancient Aliens Reviews
      • In Search of Aliens Reviews
      • America Unearthed
      • Pirate Treasure of the Knights Templar
      • Search for the Lost Giants
      • Forbidden History Reviews
      • Expedition Unknown Reviews
      • Legends of the Lost
      • Unexplained + Unexplored
      • Rob Riggle: Global Investigator
    • Book Reviews
    • Galleries >
      • Bad Archaeology
      • Ancient Civilizations >
        • Ancient Egypt
        • Ancient Greece
        • Ancient Near East
        • Ancient Americas
      • Supernatural History
      • Book Image Galleries
    • Videos
    • Collection: Ancient Alien Fraud >
      • Chariots of the Gods at 50
      • Secret History of Ancient Astronauts
      • Of Atlantis and Aliens
      • Aliens and Ancient Texts
      • Profiles in Ancient Astronautics >
        • Erich von Däniken
        • Robert Temple
        • Giorgio Tsoukalos
        • David Childress
      • Blunders in the Sky
      • The Case of the False Quotes
      • Alternative Authors' Quote Fraud
      • David Childress & the Aliens
      • Faking Ancient Art in Uzbekistan
      • Intimations of Persecution
      • Zecharia Sitchin's World
      • Jesus' Alien Ancestors?
      • Extraterrestrial Evolution?
    • Collection: Skeptic Magazine >
      • America Before Review
      • Native American Discovery of Europe
      • Interview: Scott Sigler
      • Golden Fleeced
      • Oh the Horror
      • Discovery of America
      • Supernatural Television
      • Review of Civilization One
      • Who Lost the Middle Ages
      • Charioteer of the Gods
    • Collection: Ancient History >
      • Prehistoric Nuclear War
      • The China Syndrome
      • Atlantis, Mu, and the Maya
      • Easter Island Exposed
      • Who Built the Sphinx?
      • Who Built the Great Pyramid?
      • Archaeological Cover Up?
    • Collection: The Lovecraft Legacy >
      • Pauwels, Bergier, and Lovecraft
      • Lovecraft in Bergier
      • Lovecraft and Scientology
    • Collection: UFOs >
      • Alien Abduction at the Outer Limits
      • Aliens and Anal Probes
      • Ultra-Terrestrials and UFOs
      • Rebels, Queers, and Aliens
    • Scholomance: The Devil's School
    • Prehistory of Chupacabra
    • The Templars, the Holy Grail, & Henry Sinclair
    • Magicians of the Gods Review
    • The Curse of the Pharaohs
    • The Antediluvian Pyramid Myth
    • Whitewashing American Prehistory
    • James Dean's Cursed Porsche
  • The Library
    • Ancient Mysteries >
      • Ancient Texts >
        • Mesopotamian Texts >
          • Atrahasis Epic
          • Epic of Gilgamesh
          • Kutha Creation Legend
          • Babylonian Creation Myth
          • Descent of Ishtar
          • Berossus
          • Comparison of Antediluvian Histories
        • Egyptian Texts >
          • The Shipwrecked Sailor
          • Dream Stela of Thutmose IV
          • The Papyrus of Ani
          • Classical Accounts of the Pyramids
          • Inventory Stela
          • Manetho
          • Eratosthenes' King List
          • The Story of Setna
          • Leon of Pella
          • Diodorus on Egyptian History
          • On Isis and Osiris
          • Famine Stela
          • Old Egyptian Chronicle
          • The Book of Sothis
          • Horapollo
          • Al-Maqrizi's King List
        • Teshub and the Dragon
        • Hermetica >
          • The Three Hermeses
          • Kore Kosmou
          • Corpus Hermeticum
          • The Asclepius
          • The Emerald Tablet
          • Hermetic Fragments
          • Prologue to the Kyranides
          • The Secret of Creation
          • Ancient Alphabets Explained
          • Prologue to Ibn Umayl's Silvery Water
          • Book of the 24 Philosophers
          • Aurora of the Philosophers
        • Hesiod's Theogony
        • Periplus of Hanno
        • Ctesias' Indica
        • Sanchuniathon
        • Sima Qian
        • Syncellus's Enoch Fragments
        • The Book of Enoch
        • Slavonic Enoch
        • Sepher Yetzirah
        • Tacitus' Germania
        • De Dea Syria
        • Aelian's Various Histories
        • Julius Africanus' Chronography
        • Eusebius' Chronicle
        • Chinese Accounts of Rome
        • Ancient Chinese Automaton
        • The Orphic Argonautica
        • Fragments of Panodorus
        • Annianus on the Watchers
        • The Watchers and Antediluvian Wisdom
      • Medieval Texts >
        • Medieval Legends of Ancient Egypt >
          • Medieval Pyramid Lore
          • John Malalas on Ancient Egypt
          • Fragments of Abenephius
          • Akhbar al-zaman
          • Ibrahim ibn Wasif Shah
          • Murtada ibn al-‘Afif
          • Al-Maqrizi on the Pyramids
          • Al-Suyuti on the Pyramids
        • The Hunt for Noah's Ark
        • Isidore of Seville
        • Book of Liang: Fusang
        • Agobard on Magonia
        • Book of Thousands
        • Voyage of Saint Brendan
        • Power of Art and of Nature
        • Travels of Sir John Mandeville
        • Yazidi Revelation and Black Book
        • Al-Biruni on the Great Flood
        • Voyage of the Zeno Brothers
        • The Kensington Runestone (Hoax)
        • Islamic Discovery of America
        • The Aztec Creation Myth
      • Lost Civilizations >
        • Atlantis >
          • Plato's Atlantis Dialogues >
            • Timaeus
            • Critias
          • Fragments on Atlantis
          • Panchaea: The Other Atlantis
          • Eumalos on Atlantis (Hoax)
          • Gómara on Atlantis
          • Sardinia and Atlantis
          • Santorini and Atlantis
          • The Mound Builders and Atlantis
          • Donnelly's Atlantis
          • Atlantis in Morocco
          • Atlantis and the Sea Peoples
          • W. Scott-Elliot >
            • The Story of Atlantis
            • The Lost Lemuria
          • The Lost Atlantis
          • Atlantis in Africa
          • How I Found Atlantis (Hoax)
          • Termier on Atlantis
          • The Critias and Minoan Crete
          • Rebuttal to Termier
          • Further Responses to Termier
          • Flinders Petrie on Atlantis
        • Lost Cities >
          • Miscellaneous Lost Cities
          • The Seven Cities
          • The Lost City of Paititi
          • Manuscript 512
          • The Idolatrous City of Iximaya (Hoax)
          • The 1885 Moberly Lost City Hoax
          • The Elephants of Paredon (Hoax)
        • OOPARTs
        • Oronteus Finaeus Antarctica Map
        • Caucasians in Panama
        • Jefferson's Excavation
        • Fictitious Discoveries in America
        • Against Diffusionism
        • Tunnels Under Peru
        • The Parahyba Inscription (Hoax)
        • Mound Builders
        • Gunung Padang
        • Tales of Enchanted Islands
        • The 1907 Ancient World Map Hoax
        • The 1909 Grand Canyon Hoax
        • The Interglacial Period
        • Solving Oak Island
      • Religious Conspiracies >
        • Pantera, Father of Jesus?
        • Toledot Yeshu
        • Peter of les Vaux-de-Cernay on Cathars
        • Testimony of Jean de Châlons
        • Rosslyn Chapel and the 'Prentice's Pillar
        • The Many Wives of Jesus
        • Templar Infiltration of Labor
        • Louis Martin & the Holy Bloodline
        • The Life of St. Issa (Hoax)
        • On the Person of Jesus Christ
      • Giants in the Earth >
        • Fossil Origins of Myths >
          • Fossil Teeth and Bones of Elephants
          • Fossil Elephants
          • Fossil Bones of Teutobochus
          • Fossil Mammoths and Giants
          • Giants' Bones Dug Out of the Earth
          • Fossils and the Supernatural
          • Fossils, Myth, and Pseudo-History
          • Man During the Stone Age
          • Fossil Bones and Giants
          • American Elephant Myths
          • The Mammoth and the Flood
          • Fossils and Myth
          • Fossil Origin of the Cyclops
          • Mastodon, Mammoth, and Man
        • Fragments on Giants
        • Manichaean Book of Giants
        • Geoffrey on British Giants
        • Alfonso X's Hermetic History of Giants
        • Boccaccio and the Fossil 'Giant'
        • Book of Howth
        • Purchas His Pilgrimage
        • Edmond Temple's 1827 Giant Investigation
        • The Giants of Sardinia
        • Giants and the Sons of God
        • The Magnetism of Evil
        • Tertiary Giants
        • Smithsonian Giant Reports
        • Early American Giants
        • The Giant of Coahuila
        • Jewish Encyclopedia on Giants
        • Index of Giants
        • Newspaper Accounts of Giants
        • Lanier's A Book of Giants
      • Science and History >
        • Halley on Noah's Comet
        • The Newport Tower
        • Iron: The Stone from Heaven
        • Ararat and the Ark
        • Pyramid Facts and Fancies
        • Argonauts before Homer
        • The Deluge
        • Crown Prince Rudolf on the Pyramids
        • Old Mythology in New Apparel
        • Blavatsky on Dinosaurs
        • Teddy Roosevelt on Bigfoot
        • Devil Worship in France
        • Maspero's Review of Akhbar al-zaman
        • The Holy Grail as Lucifer's Crown Jewel
        • The Mutinous Sea
        • The Rock Wall of Rockwall
        • Fabulous Zoology
        • The Origins of Talos
        • Mexican Mythology
        • Chinese Pyramids
        • Maqrizi's Names of the Pharaohs
      • Extreme History >
        • Roman Empire Hoax
        • American Antiquities
        • American Cataclysms
        • England, the Remnant of Judah
        • Historical Chronology of the Mexicans
        • Maspero on the Predynastic Sphinx
        • Vestiges of the Mayas
        • Ragnarok: The Age of Fire and Gravel
        • Origins of the Egyptian People
        • The Secret Doctrine >
          • Volume 1: Cosmogenesis
          • Volume 2: Anthropogenesis
        • Phoenicians in America
        • The Electric Ark
        • Traces of European Influence
        • Prince Henry Sinclair
        • Pyramid Prophecies
        • Templars of Ancient Mexico
        • Chronology and the "Riddle of the Sphinx"
        • The Faith of Ancient Egypt
        • Spirit of the Hour in Archaeology
        • Book of the Damned
        • Great Pyramid As Noah's Ark
        • Richard Shaver's Proofs
    • Alien Encounters >
      • US Government Ancient Astronaut Files >
        • Fortean Society and Columbus
        • Inquiry into Shaver and Palmer
        • The Skyfort Document
        • Whirling Wheels
        • Denver Ancient Astronaut Lecture
        • Soviet Search for Lemuria
        • Visitors from Outer Space
        • Unidentified Flying Objects (Abstract)
        • "Flying Saucers"? They're a Myth
        • UFO Hypothesis Survival Questions
        • Air Force Academy UFO Textbook
        • The Condon Report on Ancient Astronauts
        • Atlantis Discovery Telegrams
        • Ancient Astronaut Society Telegram
        • Noah's Ark Cables
        • The Von Daniken Letter
        • CIA Psychic Probe of Ancient Mars
        • Scott Wolter Lawsuit
        • UFOs in Ancient China
        • CIA Report on Noah's Ark
        • CIA Noah's Ark Memos
        • Congressional Ancient Aliens Testimony
        • Ancient Astronaut and Nibiru Email
        • Congressional Ancient Mars Hearing
        • House UFO Hearing
      • Ancient Extraterrestrials >
        • Premodern UFO Sightings
        • The Moon Hoax
        • Inhabitants of Other Planets
        • Blavatsky on Ancient Astronauts
        • The Stanzas of Dzyan (Hoax)
        • Aerolites and Religion
        • What Is Theosophy?
        • Plane of Ether
        • The Adepts from Venus
      • A Message from Mars
      • Saucer Mystery Solved?
      • Orville Wright on UFOs
      • Interdimensional Flying Saucers
      • Flying Saucers Are Real
      • Report on UFOs
    • The Supernatural >
      • The Devils of Loudun
      • Sublime and Beautiful
      • Voltaire on Vampires
      • Demonology and Witchcraft
      • Thaumaturgia
      • Bulgarian Vampires
      • Religion and Evolution
      • Transylvanian Superstitions
      • Defining a Zombie
      • Dread of the Supernatural
      • Vampires
      • Werewolves and Vampires and Ghouls
      • Science and Fairy Stories
      • The Cursed Car
    • Classic Fiction >
      • Lucian's True History
      • Some Words with a Mummy
      • The Coming Race
      • King Solomon's Mines
      • An Inhabitant of Carcosa
      • The Xipéhuz
      • Lot No. 249
      • The Novel of the Black Seal
      • The Island of Doctor Moreau
      • Pharaoh's Curse
      • Edison's Conquest of Mars
      • The Lost Continent
      • Count Magnus
      • The Mysterious Stranger
      • The Wendigo
      • Sredni Vashtar
      • The Lost World
      • The Red One
      • H. P. Lovecraft >
        • Dagon
        • The Call of Cthulhu
        • History of the Necronomicon
        • At the Mountains of Madness
        • Lovecraft's Library in 1932
      • The Skeptical Poltergeist
      • The Corpse on the Grating
      • The Second Satellite
      • Queen of the Black Coast
      • A Martian Odyssey
    • Classic Genre Movies
    • Miscellaneous Documents >
      • The Balloon-Hoax
      • A Problem in Greek Ethics
      • The Migration of Symbols
      • The Gospel of Intensity
      • De Profundis
      • The Life and Death of Crown Prince Rudolf
      • The Bathtub Hoax
      • Crown Prince Rudolf's Letters
      • Position of Viking Women
      • Employment of Homosexuals
      • James Dean's Scrapbook
      • James Dean's Love Letters
      • The Amazing James Dean Hoax!
    • Free Classic Pseudohistory eBooks
  • About Jason
    • Biography
    • Jason in the Media
    • Contact Jason
    • About JasonColavito.com
    • Terms and Conditions
  • Search

Scott Wolter's Latest Attack on Me Is Really Weird

2/3/2014

280 Comments

 
I’d like to start off today with some good news. According to the publisher, Cthulhu in World Mythology should be on sale in the eBook edition later this week, possibly as early as today. I’ll post an announcement as soon as it’s available. The print version will be for sale later this month. Additionally, if you’ve read my newsletter you already know that McFarland has released the cover design for my Jason and the Argonauts through the Ages. I won’t lie: It’s not the cover I would have designed, but I think I did a good job renovating the book’s website, given the weird orange and blue color scheme I had to work with. Finally, a publisher has agreed to publish my anthology of ancient texts misused by fringe historians! I have a lot of work to do to get the book ready for print, but it should be available by the end of the year.
Picture
Picture
Now on to today’s depressing look into the heart of America Unearthed.
We’ve heard time and again that no one take America Unearthed as a serious discussion of fact and that we, as viewers, ought to treat it as entertainment. So how do we explain the fact that show host Scott Wolter presented as a “fan letter of the week” last week a missive from a viewer named Stan who has taken Wolter’s claims about Smithsonian cover-ups at face value? Here’s part of the letter that Wolter wants all of his fans to read:
I appreciate how you back up your findings with science and logic, it's truly stunning how this great nation has covered up so much of its history and how so much of the public will never question the History books we learned from throughout school. As a patriot I'm gonna contact my Representative and will also place a call to the Smithsonian to ask about their cover up tendencies.

Wolter then thanks Stan for his letter and says that viewers like him have made his show “such a success.” In other words, Wolter has conceded that his viewers take his insinuations as facts and that he is proud of this. You’ll also notice that Stan voices a specific audience demographic I have pointed to in previous analyses: American nationalists.

Therefore, the argument that the show is not meant to be taken as factual is inoperative. Scott Wolter tells us so himself.

But this pales in comparison to the comments section of Wolter’s blog post, where Wolter attacks me and my blog, referring to me only as “Mr. Debunker” and asserting that I have “home field advantage” on my blog and that my “team” needs to play in his court, which I suppose means his blog. I don’t have a team, but whatever. Apparently having a television show isn’t enough of a “home field advantage” for Wolter, since his show gets to set the agenda for what all the rest of us talk about vis-à-vis his work.

I had to laugh when Wolter’s response to the suggestion that he should address criticisms of his work was to complain that “blatant negativity and personal attacks are not appropriate.” This came just minutes after Wolter wrote that “scholar’s [sic] miss use [sic] of proper scientific evidence” had cause a “mess”—a blatantly negative comment if ever I’ve heard one—followed by a personal attack on me as “Mr. Debunker,” who presents “miss-leading [sic] and inaccurate information about me, my work, and the show” and is not “serious and productive” like him. Of course! Personal attacks are insults to Wolter only. How silly of me! It’s not like I have a giant new book of serious and productive research into Greek mythology coming out soon, one that has absolutely nothing to do with Scott Wolter!

As always: I am happy to correct any errors that appear in my work. The material I publish is based upon the best available sources at the time of writing, and specific claims have specific sources, including production documents obtained from Minnesota Film and Television, H2 network press releases, interviews with History officials, and Wolter’s own broadcasted and printed words. If Wolter feels I have erred in a claim made about him, he is welcome to let me know what is incorrect and why the documentary source for that claim is wrong.

Anyway, since Wolter says that he won’t “advertise” for me, I’m not sure I should direct you to his blog with a direct link. But I will anyway. Here are the relevant comments:

February 1, 5:30 AM
I'm very confident my Hooked X research is sound. There are many people who are frightened by the implications of the cultures who embraced (and still embrace) the Hooked X ideology. All the criticism in the world by Mr. Debunker and his friends can't change that.

You don't need to advertise for him, I’m sure plenty of people know where to go for miss-leading and inaccurate information about me, my work, and the show. So you go over there to play and leave the serious and productive work to the professional hard scientists.

February 1, 6:30 AM
'That site' has had the home field advantage for well over a year now. It's time you guys played a game on the road and since you're already here now...

Seriously, I'm happy to answer any legitimate inquiries. We can also have some fun, but blatant negativity and personal attacks are not appropriate. BTW: How did the Talpiot Tomb symbolism get on the OREO cookie prior to the discovery of the tomb? Somebody knew...!

Phil [Gotsch] can handle himself just fine; he's a sharp guy and good person. Be nice to him.

Let me remind you, by the way: Scott Wolter’s “hard science” training is a bachelor’s degree in geology. Mine is a bachelor’s degree in archaeology, which included actual fieldwork conducting archaeological surveys and excavation. He’s been working on archaeological problems for less time (2001-today) than I have (1999-today), and I’ve worked in a major government museum where I’ve had special access to the pre-Columbian artifacts collection and have examined them firsthand. I also have a not-inconsiderable collection of Victorian hoax artifacts created for the artifact trade market, and I worked with professional archaeologists to prove they were fake. These are hoax Native American spear points and arrowheads of varying putative origins, some quite well done. For the last century, these artifacts had been sold and resold as genuine until I ended up with them in 2001—coincidentally the same time Wolter was “authenticating” the Kensington Rune Stone. I’ve done the same type of work looking at rocks to gauge their authenticity, though I didn’t have a lab tricked out in glowing blue maps. (And the Wolter-style relative dating technique is not unique to geology; Flinders Petrie helped create a relative dating system for archaeology in the 1800s!)

Anyway, the point is that I match Wolter credential for credential in our respective fields of fringe studies, and my several books and wealth of documentary research easily outstrip Wolter’s own. Appeals to Wolter’s special authority over me as a mere blogger based on scientific training and experience working with stone artifacts therefore do not apply. In studying concrete, sure, Wolter beats me there (it’s his professional field), just as I easily run laps around Wolter in studies of horror literature and mythology.

Wolter asserts in a comment posted this morning that “the constant whining gets old” and that “logic tells me there’s a reason” that people get so upset by “the work myself [sic] and other professional’s [sic] publish.” He implies this is due to fear of his powerful insights into Oreo cookies and Jesus symbolism, but he seems unable to understand that those who work seriously and carefully with historical material are upset with him because he is making great leaps of logic on faulty evidence and creating a situation where viewers who do not have training in the field, like his viewer Stan, accept speculation as fact and complain to the government about an imaginary conspiracy promoted by Wolter.

One could easily turn this around: Why does Wolter get so incensed at criticism? Logic tells me there’s a reason… Could it be due to fear that he is wrong?

But what do I know? I’m just here to “play” on my “home field.”
280 Comments
Scott David Hamilton
2/3/2014 03:14:47 am

I love "How did the Talpiot Tomb symbolism get on the OREO cookie prior to the discovery of the tomb? Somebody knew...!" If somebody knew about the Talpiot tomb, why would they reveal that on a baked good? Clearly it wasn't being kept a secret on purpose, as all the publicity the tomb got proves, so what were "they" trying to achieve with the cookie revelation?

Reply
Argonautica
2/3/2014 05:17:00 am

The Golden Fleece was the Vernal Equinox in Aries, and the Argo on the sea was the sun in the blue sky, then there's the equation with the wheat and water

Reply
Gunn
2/3/2014 07:51:58 am

The proposed earlier cookie revelation could only have been in preparation for the Talpiot Tomb revelation. (Now back to the future again, eating said cookies with cold milk.)

Reply
WAFFLE WATCHER
2/3/2014 07:12:04 pm

99 per cent waffle in these comments below Jason's Blogs.

Good for the trash can

Reply
Rev. Americanegro
9/6/2016 01:41:11 am

Mr. Debunker,

Just wanted you to know that this article was first on the list when I googled "Why is Scott Wolter such a fag" even though that last word doesn't appear on this page. That made me giggle. Whatever his personal life, he's a big baby who's never at fault, and the only person in the world not ruined by academia.

Reply
Rev. Phil Gotsch
2/3/2014 03:16:02 am

What I continue to find entirely unhelpful … is rendering these discussions into some kind of *pissing*contest* between Scott Wolter, geologist … and Jason, the Argonaut …

Let's discuss the CLAIMS and FACTS and IDEAS … and drop the personal stuff … I dunno ...

Reply
Jason Colavito link
2/3/2014 03:17:08 am

Please convey this sentiment to your dear friend, Scott, who chose to bash me on his blog.

Reply
Rev. Phil Gotsch
2/3/2014 03:28:16 am

LOL …

Scott Wolter is a "big boy" and he is fully capable of speaking for himself …

You've got a blog; Scott has a blog … Whatever … They're just "blogs," yes … ???

Uncle Ron
2/3/2014 04:40:57 am

Phil, The idea that "they're just blogs" is the same side-stepping of responsibility for content as saying that a show that is formatted as a documentary is "just entertainment".

Harry
2/3/2014 06:37:03 am

Phil,

Jason isn't asking you to speak for Wolter, he is suggesting that, if you are serious about how "unhelpful" it is not to get into a "pissing contest," you can speak to Wolter. Here is what you might say:

If you have a complaint about the accuracy of Jason's detailed criticisms of America Unearthed or your other work, you should cite evidence that it is, in fact, wrong. After all, Jason does not merely accuse Wolter of inaccuracies and illogic, he documents why he thinks he is wrong.

Perhaps you do not want or feel the need to act as such an intermediary. Fine! But if Wolter is a "big boy" and capable of speaking for himself, why do you need to speak for him, even when Jason is merely defending himself against Wolter's evidence-free accusations?

I also find it odd that you are blase about anything Wolter says, but repeatedly express concern about Jason's postings. You are like a referee who only blows the whistle against one team and ignores infractions of the other.

Rev. Americanegro
9/6/2016 01:43:17 am

Careful Jason! You're only "hardening" his "resolve"! And yes, that's Venus Family Templar Freemason Sex Code!

Matt Mc
2/3/2014 03:27:26 am

Rev, I agree that a online pissing match is only going to be in poor taste for all those involved.

I also agree that Jason has every right for a rebuttal based on the statements Wolter made.

Perhaps as a party that is in contact with both parties you could arrange a polite email question and response between the two? Something like that could serve to prevent this from becoming a real pissing match. Wolter and Jason, don't have to agree, or even like each other but maybe a exchange will help prevent this from escalating.

Reply
Rev. Phil Gotsch
2/3/2014 03:38:36 am

Look, neither Scott Wolter nor I had ever HEARD of Jason "the Argonaut" Colavito until Jason starting bashing Scott Wolter in public …

The only reason I found this internet attack-corner is that I casually Googled Scott's show to see what if anything people were saying about it …

The fact that this Wolter-bashing blog has become a *pissing*contest* isn't Scott Wolter's fault … One of the first sensible rules in a *pissing*contest* however, is NOT to piss into the wind ...

Matt Mc
2/3/2014 03:47:07 am

Okay you look I was just trying to find a civil way for the two to talk.

Not a big deal.

And for the record I don't think Jason bashed Scott, Jason merely took a look at the theories Scott presented and then looked into Scott's claim to having certain credentials.

I just simply thought that perhaps, just perhaps a moderated discussion between the two, with question and answers from both side could serve to not make peace but to maybe open a course of discussion. I also thought that despite you friendship with Wolter that you could act as a neutral moderator, which was a compliment to you.

Nothing more that trying to think of a way to perhaps open communication, its amazing what can happen when to opposing parties communicate.

Jason Colavito link
2/3/2014 03:51:18 am

It would be fun to have a discussion about issues with Scott Wolter.

I have had a standing offer to every fringe writer I discuss to let him or her write a fact-based article detailing why I'm wrong to be posted unedited on this blog. The closest I've come to having someone agree was Harry Hubbard's Q-and-A session.

B L
2/3/2014 04:16:52 am

Jason:

I think Jim Egan did a pretty good job, as well. Egan seemed to really revel in the opportunity to present his ideas to those interested whether they be pro or con. He seemed like a pretty cool guy.

titus pullo
2/3/2014 06:25:35 am

Jim Egan is a nice guy. I met him last summer when I was vacationing in Newport...

Gunn
2/3/2014 08:08:38 am

I think everyone who's gone to the Newport Tower has met Jim...he likes to amble from his museum up to the Tower, I think, whenever anyone looks particularly interested. This is what happened to me after about an hour and my wife was getting desperate to go visit something--anything--else. Jim was kind enough to stretch the visit out a bit longer for me. Personally, I think the Portuguese may have made it, or Henry Sinclair, representing post-Templar interests. (Ha! Ha! What happened to Steve?)

terry the censor
2/3/2014 07:03:26 pm

@Rev Phil
> Jason starting bashing Scott Wolter in public

Here it is for the n-teenth time: in the rev's view, criticism of facts and ideas is never legitimate, it is always a personal attack.

That's pseudoscientific thinking, pure and simple.

B L
2/3/2014 03:57:47 am

Respectfully and completely seriously, Rev. Phil Gotsch:

In the past when the CLAIMS and FACTS and IDEAS have been discussed on Jason's site you remind us that Scott Wolter is an entertainer and should not be taken seriously.

I agree that personal attacks can get out of hand here sometimes. But, your message is confusing to me.

Reply
Rev. Phil Gotsch
2/3/2014 04:02:33 am

B L …

No … I have NEVER used the term, "entertainer," to describe Scott Wolter …

What I HAVE written is that the H2 "America Unearthed" TV shows are commercially produced TV shows that are produced and marketed in order to attract and hold the attention of an audience in order to induce them into watching the paid adverts …

They are NOT of the character and quality of "NOVA" or "Frontline, and VERY few TV shows are such …

Those are FACTS ...

B L
2/3/2014 04:03:08 am

Rev. Phil Gotsch:

Disregarding other contributors on this site and focusing only on what Jason has written in the past...do you really feel like Jason has been unfair and dishonest when reviewing the "facts" that Wolter presents? Or, do you only take issue with the tone?

Would you admit that Wolter may be too emotionally invested in his ideas to the point where he can no longer look at the hooked "x" or related materials with an independant, scientific eye?

Rev. Phil Gotsch
2/3/2014 04:22:05 am

B L …

Again and again and again … Proper measured respectful discussion of facts and ideas and claims is ALWAYS in order … "Personal attacks" that "get out of hand" are NEVER in order ...

Mark L
2/6/2014 03:09:36 am

Could you please give a breakdown of the areas you think Jason is wrong about, rather than just shouting "personal insult" every time an opinion you agree with is dismantled with evidence?

I have read your comments on here for several months and they don't seem to change. Perhaps you can produce the evidence that shows Jason is wrong, and we can move on from there?

Uncle Ron
2/3/2014 04:06:12 am

"Let's discuss the CLAIMS and FACTS and IDEAS..."

Phil, every single day Jason discusses claims and facts and ideas and backs up HIS claims with more FACTS (sources, timelines, translations) as well as illustrating the inconsistencies, faulty logic and specious origins of the claims made by Scott and others. His detractors in the fringe history camp will be taken seriously only when they back their claims with the same rigorous scholarship he brings to the discussion and account for the apparent discrepancies in their conclusions.

Reply
Walt
2/3/2014 05:33:40 am

I agree with you that Jason shouldn't take the bait and engage in personal attacks, and I've brought it up when I think he takes cheap potshots. They make him look as petty as Scott, but he didn't even do that in this article.

Scott definitely started it by basing his show on the concept that the experts either don't know what they're talking about, or are lying. He even sprinkles the personal attacks here and there throughout the show. Since he started the personal attacks, against the entire academic world no less, he gets what he deserves.

And it really is a bit difficult to have an intelligent conversation about most of what's presented on AU. It's been so thoroughly debunked by so many people over so many years, the discussions have already been had and are available on the internet. If he finds new physical evidence of something, even the experts he mocks will discuss it.

Reply
Gunn link
2/3/2014 08:39:43 am

What's odd here is that I actually experienced one of the complaints Wolter made, about artifacts not being adequately represented by the so-called experts.

Though the debate is still open for speculation about the so-called Maine Runestones, they are not on public display. The consequence for me, personally, is part of "the mess" Wolter speaks of, from my own unique point of view. I felt like I was in a real mess after driving all the way to Maine from Boston, to be told without apology that one would need an appointment to see them! How astonished and angry was I?

What a mess...what a total waste of time. By the way, the reason given to me for why they weren't on display: Because the experts had determined that they are fake. Kind of like how "the experts" have done with the Old Trouble Maker (KRS) at times (but which, thank goodness, is currently on public view, for an admission price). Experts can be, and are, occasionally wrong. Wolter is not totally off-base in his feelings, as I have felt the same feelings...and basically, for the same reasons.

Having said this, I should mention that I don't endorse many of the story-lines presented in his shows...some do have bits and pieces of merit, though. For those poor choices, the shows should be attacked, perhaps, but, again, not the show host.

Walt
2/3/2014 10:17:03 am

Gunn, I'm sorry you wasted a drive, but I can understand why an artifact not believed to be authentic isn't on display, and why an appointment is required. SW managed to view a similarly-categorized artifact, the Bat Creek Stone, in the last episode so the process works. I do wish you were somehow aware an appointment was required. I don't believe curators are attempting to suppress information about these objects.

And I agree, experts are sometimes wrong. I always hope the little guy can prove something. Scott would probably think I'm a hater because I agree with most of Jason's points, and Jason or some of his followers probably think I'm a Jason hater since I agree with some of Scott's points (just none about the actual theories, unfortunately.)

I often wonder while reading this blog and assessing Jason's credibility, what would he have been saying about Alfred Wegener and Continental Drift had he been blogging in the 1920s.

Jason Colavito link
2/3/2014 10:21:19 am

You might notice that I don't say that Wolter's ideas are impossible. I say that he hasn't provided any evidence to support them and is purposely recycling long-debunked claims. The better parallel isn't to plate tectonics but to promoting the hollow earth theory in the 1920s.

Also, re: Bat Creek Stone. Funny how the Smithsonian somehow failed to "suppress" Wolter's work on that.

Walt
2/3/2014 12:15:16 pm

Wegener did submit physical evidence (and politely worked with professionals) while Wolter has not. Yet, even with that evidence, his idea was so rejected that professionals refused to even have a serious discussion about it, which is an example of how SW paints the academic community. But, I'll give you the fact that Wolter's theories are much more akin to the hollow earth theory.

Wolter's Smithsonian allegations are the most troublesome to me. It's one thing to vaguely insinuate scholars are oppressing ideas, but he makes specific allegations against the Smithsonian.

Walt
2/3/2014 02:02:42 pm

BTW, Jason, someone else put in a blog request so I'd like to do the same. I think the issue of Continental Drift and professionals rejecting the idea for 50 years would make a great blog.

It's probably the most well-known case of what professionals at the time considered pseudo-science proving true. You could cover academics, pseudo-science, amateurs vs professionals, evidence vs whatever SW tries to do, and tie it all into a lesson for today's pseudo-scientists or academics, if there is one.

That one case is probably the reason I watch so many BS shows. I'm just trying to see if I can spot the diamond in the ruff. Just coal so far. I'm a little curious if you think you would've spotted it, or rejected it, back then based on the information accepted at the time.

Dan
2/3/2014 05:48:01 am

"His detractors in the fringe history camp will be taken seriously only when they back their claims with the same rigorous scholarship he brings to the discussion and account for the apparent discrepancies in their conclusions."

This is EXACTLY the problem people have with Wolter, Phil and the various drive-by Wolterians. Jason's reviews are chock full of well researched factual information, thorough background on all of the scholarship on a particular issue, and rational discussions of all of the claims made on Wolter's show. Jason offers substantive information and the blowback from the fringe historians is always personality based. Absolutely nothing that anyone has ever said against Jason's AU reviews has challenged his substantive findings.

The attacks on Jason are repetitive: either he's jealous of Wolter's tv personality, obsessed with Wolter, only has a "blog", has a cabal of debunkers who "gang up" on Wolter, or lacks the field experience of Wolter. None of it is valid, but more importantly, none of it ever confronts the actual scholarship that Jason offers to debunk Wolter. We know why this is -- Wolter's show is utter nonsense -- but its important to recognize that the "personal attacks" are really one-sided (Wolterians attacking Jason).

Reply
Gunn
2/3/2014 08:53:40 am

Dan, your viewpoint is obviously one-sided.

Graham
2/3/2014 01:54:03 pm

I've seen the same phenomena in the context of the Burzynski clinic.

The second of the films by Eric "Zeitgeist" Merola actualy goes so far as to claim that critics of Dr Burzynski are part of a 'paid cabal' created by the medical industry and the FDA to attack the Dr and his research.

RESPONSE TO REVEREND GOTSCH
2/3/2014 07:14:31 pm

You should stick to subject matters that are free from being debunked and fail the critical test. That's as good a tip as you'll ever get from anybody. Dump Scott Wolter without any further delay and become a member of the rational community.

Reply
mick mack
1/27/2015 07:59:52 am

I think Gotsch should get rid of the "REV" in front of his name

Dr. Leo Spahchemin
2/6/2014 04:32:52 am

I just found this site after doing a Google search for Scott Wolter's credentials, so I don't personally know anyone involved in these debates and only know Scott Wolter through his TV show and his personal commentary in reviews of his books on Amazon.

I have to side with Rev. Phil. This is a pissing contest - look at the title of this blog entry. We have one party reacting emotionally to criticism (in essence, whining) in lieu of addressing the substance of the criticism. We have the other side tattling to the world about that whining and characterizing it as an "attack" and stating that it is "weird."

Ladies and gentlemen, that is a pissing contest, plain and simple.

Jason, you should be the one to rise to a higher level and refrain from participating in this sort of back and forth. You are mature enough to focus on facts and evidence instead of sensational stories and theories, so please be just a bit more mature and focus on the substance (or lack thereof) of Wolter's shows and books and ignore his immature comments about you.

At the risk of sounding immediately hypocritical, I don't expect to see Scott Wolter similarly rising to the occasion. There is a correlation between maturity and integrity. I've watched maybe eight or so episodes of America Unearthed, and I've seen intellectual integrity in one episode, the Great Wall of Texas (and even then, it was diluted by inane postulations about giants having created the wall in some ancient time). When faced with undisputed geological evidence, evidence that if ignored could harm his reputation directly as to his geology business, Wolter admitted that the wall was created by nature, not some mysterious civilization. Otherwise, time and again, Scott Wolter mis-states and mischaracterizes the evidence of his investigations and ignores evidence that is contrary to his sensational theories. I would not anticipate that an individual who stoops to those levels of alleged analysis and logical thinking could reasonably be expected to act in an even-handed and reasonable fashion. Like it or not, Scott Wolter is a success and that success and the admiration of at least tens of thousands of fans, albeit less discerning individuals, has gone to his head. Wolter's ego will not readily tolerate criticism, but lacking an ability to defend his unsupported theories on the merits, he instead will attack the messenger and ignore the more difficult task of addressing the message.



However, Rev. Phil, you conveniently ignored the fact that a pissing contest involves more than one contestant and that your friend is at least as fully engaged in competing as is the host of this blog. Also, I have read through your comments on this comment stream and I find it puzzling that you do not address any of the substantive questions posed to you.


Let me reiterate and somewhat restate what someone else inquired: have you ever had a conversation with Scott Wolter in which he stated that the show's producers and editors are editing out explanatory material and as a consequence, are negatively impacting his credibility? I think all honest people will agree that many/most episodes of AU contain the following: First Expert: "A might lead to B;" Second Expert: "It is not impossible that B leads to C" and two minutes later Scott Wolter: "So therefore we have CONCLUSIVELY established that A leads to C." That is a fair characterization of problems with Scott's logic that we see repeatedly on the show, correct? Has Scott ever said to you "You know, it bugs me when the producers edit out the part where I say that "A actually and genuinely leads to LMN and LMN actually and genuinely leads to C"? Does he ever acknowledge that the way he is depicted is as someone who routinely converts "possible" into "absolutely and unquestionably" without providing any additional facts or reasons to justify that conversion?

Reply
Jason Colavito link
2/6/2014 04:45:57 am

Leo, this is one blog post out of literally thousands I've written, and I thought it was worth pointing out how Mr. Wolter chose to address the repeated and substantive criticisms I've made of his work--you're welcome to check them out by clicking the America Unearthed Reviews link. You will, I trust, note that unlike Mr. Wolter I have never referred to him by a juvenile nickname. I labeled his criticism "weird" because lashing out with juvenile name-calling and accusing me of fabrications is decidedly unusual and also a serious charge that requires a response.

You might also notice that the use of "weird" etc. is meant in part as humor, since I did find Mr. Wolter's comments to be amusing in their emotional non-substance.

Dr. Leo Spahchemin
2/6/2014 07:57:44 am

As long as we're not talking about dictators or back-alley muggers, it's rarely a mistake to take the high road.

Rev. Phil Gotsch
2/3/2014 03:58:20 am

I have now for several years jokingly described my friend, Scott Wolter, as having not only "several irons in the fire," but several "FIRES," each with numerous irons … So I doubt that such an exchange will happen …

But in the meantime … I do indeed wish and hope that these very interesting topics for discussion could be carried forward without snarky personal remarks … Thus far, that possibility seems as remote as ever ...

Reply
B L
2/3/2014 04:09:29 am

Rev. Phil Gotsch:
I'm curious, and please disregard if you don't feel you can answer for Scott....

Do you think Scott's becoming frustrated with the show? You allude in the above comments that Scott should be considered a legitimate historical researcher, but that the editors of the show have entertainment in mind. If the show's editors are getting in the way of Scott's message, and possibly tarnishing his reputation I would expect the situation would be frustrating for him.

Reply
Rev. Phil Gotsch
2/3/2014 04:24:32 am

B L …

I am Scott Wolter's personal friend and professional colleague, but I am not his agent or spokesman ...

J.A. Dickey
2/3/2014 10:12:46 am

I try not to close the door to future possibilities, but
part of the equation is the way HISTORY + H2 have
exploited Scot Wolter's arrival into this great debate.
Jason has been rigorously exact in his analysis, so
as to place him as an innate counterpoint to poor SW's
freewheeling analysis. Scot Wolter clearly thinks that
the good reverand has entered an internet pit of vipers.
The herring-gutting H2 has been doing has only weakly
been defended by our Rev. Phil, his defense of his friend
as been more commendable and careful. All the merrie
jests here are not for the weak of heart, fringe ideas are
very open to a degree of name calling, even so, for one
who knows the late 1600s calculus feud was intense, this
is starting to get up to the stratospheric level of the grand
Newton/Leibniz calculus feud. Jason tends to be more
accurate. Are we to see a bog battle where both sides roll
in the mud? If only the internet existed in the late 1600s
what would have been said! Jason has a MENSA I.Q most
likely. He is careful with his research and can happily read
the quirky + eccentric Victorians without loosing his focus.

Rev. Americanegro
9/6/2016 01:57:03 am

"I am Scott Wolter's personal friend and professional colleague, but I am not his agent or spokesman ..."

Phil, baby, in what way are you our Scott's "professional colleague"? Is coffee involved?

Jason Colavito link
2/3/2014 09:12:22 am

I've deleted several posts from this thread, which was descending into off-topic discussions of commenters rather than the blog topic.

Reply
Mark
2/5/2014 01:18:07 am

Rev,
Scott is avoiding Jason. He reached out and did so respectfully but Wolter does not want to deal with his biggest critic. Makes no sense and jason has my respect over Wolter, manning up and taking the bull by the horns. I respectfully request that you not act as a bully on here monitoring comments and then providing your two sense, as well as notifying Wolter about things.

Reply
Brent
2/5/2014 06:35:45 am

You keep talking about FACTS and Pi$ssing contests, but you provide no FACTS to support your ideas about A) Jason starting a pi$$ing contest or B) That Jason attacks Scott Wolter personally.

You just keep saying the same old stuff, man. It's tiresome, and never substantive. Where's your "FACTS" to support your own assertions?

Reply
mike
1/27/2015 08:04:07 am

please take the "Rev" from your name when you post , really?
"“We have the DNA,” Wolter says, of the man “who’s buried in the box labeled Jesus, son of Joseph” in the Talpiot Tomb. Yes, Wolter claims to have the actual genome of the Son of God. Presumably, that’s one of the secrets he wasn’t supposed to tell anyone. Wolter then denies Christianity’s central mystery and proclaims that the Resurrection never occurred (as Muslims do today in venerating Jesus as a prophet). Instead, he claims that Jesus was initiated into a spiritual resurrection through Egyptian rituals that became part of Freemasonry. "

Reply
Rev. Americanegro
9/6/2016 01:55:07 am

Phil, as a fellow Reverend I can tell you that your asinine repetitive posts in support of your "friend and colleague" Scott "Big Boy" Wolter are not helping matters at all. The sheer number of duplicate posts you make makes you a spammer at best, an expert on "Big Boys" at worst ("Oh look! None of the other campers showed up! Guess it's just you and me!") and to be honest, an ass every trip of the train. On the bright side your many repeated duplicate posts boost Jason's numbers. With all due respect.

Reply
Only Me
2/3/2014 04:21:02 am

Phil, why don't you admit that you've born a grudge against Jason since he wrote the article revealing Scott's claim to a Masters Degree was false, an act prompted by numerous viewers who asked about the credibility of his credentials?

For someone so cocksure his claims and ideas are the truth, Scott has taken great liberties in waging a one-man crusade against anyone who questions his opinions and methods.

You, Scott and Steve have engaged in personal attacks against Jason, and Scott sought legal action against him, too. Apparently, you are okay with this.

Jason makes a rebuttal to Scott's blog comments, where, in a pique of immaturity, he refers to Jason by something other than his given name (an act he has never done to Scott himself)...and now you're back to whining about "snarky personal remarks". Even when Jason directly addresses Scott's claims, facts and ideas, you scream "Obsession!" and assert there's an agenda driven by jealousy.

Why don't you just say what's in your heart? That Scott can say and do whatever he damn well pleases, free from the reach of criticism. We all have friends, Phil, but true friends aren't afraid to reign in their comrades when their words and actions may be detrimental. Enabling is not friendship.

Reply
Rev. Phil Gotsch
2/3/2014 04:34:12 am

It becomes "personal" for me only when someone unfairly attacks the character of my friend and professional colleague …

Let's stick to calm orderly respectful discussion of facts, ideas, and claims … ???

Reply
Gary
2/3/2014 05:01:14 am

Phil, it's impossible to respect anyone who gets on TV and spreads falsehoods and demeans legitimate scholars.

Only Me
2/3/2014 05:02:16 am

So, explain to me how your personal attacks on both Jason and most of the regular commenters to his blog ARE NOT unfair attacks of the character of the aforementioned. How are Steve's and Scott's personal attacks toward the same also not unfair?

I'd be glad to *respectfully* discuss facts, ideas and claims with you...if you would let me, without automatically reverting to the "It's just a TV show/entertainment to draw viewers to advertisements/not the quality of NOVA" argument. Or imply I'm a Scott basher, or Jason sycophant, simply because I uphold Scott to the standards expected of someone who claims to be a scientist and uses science to support his ideas on his show.

I find it hard to have a "respectful discussion" if ANY form of criticism to Scott's work is tantamount to "snarky personal attacks".

Tara Jordan link
2/3/2014 05:14:06 am

But it is perfectly legitimate for your "friend and professional colleague" to personally attacks & insults academics & scientists on every occasion?Reverend.,are you aware of the principle of reciprocity?.

Clint Knapp
2/3/2014 05:34:10 am

Phil, once again, you seem to be mistaking Jason's articles- which are thorough explorations and exposures of the claims and ideas put forward by the show, their origins, and the actual scientific work behind or against them- with the comments section and things said by the visitors to the blog.

Jason does not launch personal attacks, and if you think you have proof that he does then please provide direct quotes and links to the articles in which he does so. Until then, we can only assume that you are referring to the comments- which are not Jason's views but those of individual readers.

You're so quick to complain that it's "just a blog" and that AU is "not NOVA" or "just entertainment", or that you believe cultural diffusion deserves a better discussion than what is found here, but you routinely ignore the mission statement of Jason's blog: to examine fringe claims, their sources, and the evidence used to support them with a critical eye.

If it's "just a blog" and you disagree so much, why continue? If Scott Wolter is "a "big boy" and he is fully capable of speaking for himself …" why not just let him do so instead of routinely showing up to complain about personal attacks and dodge the fundamental questions being raised in thousands of words a day regarding his slipshod work, baseless accusations, and poor scholarship?

Your own decision today to refer to this blog's owner as "Jason "the Argonaut" Colavito" is as much a personal attack as anything any other commenter here has made. It denotes a dismissive stance of his scholastic exploration of a well-known myth and an attempt to create an identifier the man himself has never once claimed. If I were to start saying "Scott "the Templar" Wolter" you'd surely have something to say about personal attacks, so please afford this blog's host the same courtesy you expect to be extended to your "friend and professional colleague".

Harry
2/3/2014 06:55:36 am

Phil,

Please give us an example of an unfair attack on Wolter's character by Jason.

If I had a TV show in which I purported to prove that "the geology we know is wrong," and then repeatedly demonstrated a serious misunderstanding of geology and jumped to conclusions for which the evidence was very bad, wouldn't you get fed up and suggest that I am incompetent in geology?

RPG
2/3/2014 07:08:22 am

"If it's "just a blog" and you disagree so much, why continue? "

BECAUSE I ****ING LOVE HIM ALRIGHT?

*sobbing*

Gunn
2/3/2014 09:23:15 am

RPG, you are making fun of Phil for his dedicated loyalty to a long-time friend, when in fact he really does love Wolter...and not as a gay man, either, but as a friend and Christian. Everybody should have such loyal friends.

When I was a kid back in the US Army, in S. Korea, my Company Commander had the dozen or so steps leading up to the front door hand-painted with words of valor. One of the words was LOYALTY.

I admire the loyalty of friends; without loyalty, friendships can be less meaningful.

Gunn
2/3/2014 09:40:00 am

Oh, I got it a bit late. RPG: Rocket Propelled Grenade.

Joe
2/3/2014 01:19:09 pm

Phil,

Per your own request “Let's stick to calm orderly respectful discussion of facts, ideas, and claims” and you have continued to say that AU is a commerically produced show and is not the quality of other shows. So I would be interested in your opinion on Wolter's claims on the Oreo cookie. This is not a claim that he made on the show but instead one he established in is most recent book. Besides the book he also commented himself on a recent blog response when questioned on it.

I do not want to say anything personally negative about Mr. Wolter and would like to stick to the claim itself. Wolter is claiming that the design is covered in several Templar symbols and is evidence in proving his overall argument in his book. In his review Jason actually spent time researching the different cookie designs that the Oreo has gone through in its lifetime. By doing so he has shown that several of the images evolved over time to their current look. So by doing this most basic research he has shown that Wolter's claim is highly doubtful if not outright fictious. I am curious to see if you have any counter argument or evidence to agree with Mr. Wolter.

On a second note, by calling Jason the “Argonaut” you are participating in the same name calling that you decry.

Rev. Americanegro
9/6/2016 02:03:28 am

Gunn,

Whenever someone is soooo darn quick to say "and not as a gay man" that sets my gaydar to buzzing. Is the gay thing a hotbutton for you? Down in the cut?

"RPG" is not "Rocket Propelled Grenade" which is by the way kind of phallic, but "Rev. Phil Gotsch".

Walt
2/3/2014 05:16:14 am

Of course Wolter believes in his show, and believes it should be taken seriously. So do the ghost hunters, bigfoot hunters, monster quest people, the partisan news organizations, the business makeover hosts, ufo hunters, and every other yahoo with a TV show. They're all entertainment simply because they're advertiser-supported. All such shows have exactly one purpose, to gain viewers. These days, with coporate conglomerates owning multiple stations, there's a science to doing just that.

The worst thing about his show, even excluding the speculation, is his complete inability to make any findings about rocks, as a forensic geologist. He can identify types of rocks, but that's about it. I read your blog objectively and watch his show objectively, and he has yet to make a concrete geological finding. His dating of rocks is as speculative as his theories.

If he really wants to prove the experts wrong and demonstrate his geology skills, he should cover the Yonaguni Monument. That's about the only topic I've seen covered by these "experts are wrong" shows that I might believe. But even then, I'd like to see some artifacts found just like the experts would. Unfortunately, that would be real science (hopefully) and wouldn't be related to pre-Columbian visits to the Americas.

Reply
Rev. Phil Gotsch
2/3/2014 05:16:29 am

Let's just discuss facts, claims, and ideas ...

Reply
Matt Mc
2/3/2014 05:32:28 am

Okay I will bite,

Was Jason being dishonest when he presented the facts that Wolter was incorrectly claiming to have a Honorary Doctorate?

I know I personally felt that this was a deliberate misleading statement on Wolter's part. I understand he says it was in jest but he did not present it to the public this way. (also this is not a attack on Wolter, merely a discussion of the facts as presented). From an ethical standpoint I feel it was dishonest of Wolter to falsely present this as fact (Which he did, not saying this to tarnish his character just discussing facts) and because he once choose to be dishonest or play a semantic game with his audience is it not fair for that same audience to question his statements based on his past perceived dishonesty.


Reply
Walt
2/3/2014 05:51:49 am

In case you haven't noticed, Jason loves to discuss facts, claims, and ideas. If you notice something in his blog that requires further discussion, bring it up.

The problem is, he's pretty thorough. There's not much room for discussion after he publishes all the evidence of a theory and the background of the theory going all the way back to its birth. Scott himself found this out when he commented here in the past. He couldn't argue with facts, so he resorted to what he's doing now.

Reply
J.A.D
2/3/2014 10:29:15 am

I think it is possible for AQUATIC APE THEORISTs to write
Ph.D level papers despite what the ANIMAL PLANET special
just did to the legitimacy of the premise. I think that SW may
survive the dreadful editing done inside each AU episode...
At one point I thought poor Rev. Phil was a "nom de plume"
alter ego of Scott Wolter, I may have to apologize to him for
this all, and the way its sinking into something rather crude.
Jason is chillingly accurate as to how "herring-gutted" H2 is!

Zach
2/3/2014 06:36:40 pm

Reverend, with all due respect, why is it that when the previous posters are trying to have a rational argument by being as respectful as possible about the "facts, claims, and ideas" that Wolter puts out, all you can do is keep repeating yourself by saying "lets just discuss facts, claims and ideas." What are facts, claims, and ideas to you if thats the case? I'd be willing to hear you out.

Reply
Uncle Ron
2/3/2014 05:21:40 am

It's not so much that Jason's site has a "home field advantage", it's that the Academia Team has established the rules of the game. Fringers want to wear the team jersey but when they take the field they play by a different set of rules and then complain when they get disqualified.

Reply
Rev. Phil Gotsch
2/3/2014 05:35:22 am

And unfortunately for THEM, "the establishment" heroes in the academy (for many of whom I have deep respect and admiration, not least because they were and are my own teachers) … are paid for and expected to reach and hold firm CONCLUSIONS …

One of my minor degrees is in North American archaeology/anthropology … and I was LONG very much annoyed and dismayed by the rigid DOGMA of "Clovis FIRST" … Whenever a site turned up an OLDER C-14 date, it was often dismissed flatly *out*of*hand* as simply obviously WRONG, because -- by agreed-upon DEFINITION -- "Clovis" WAS the OLDEST …

So I have mixed sympathies in considering many of these questions … The H2 "America Unearthed" TV shows, IMHO, are valuable in generating interest in and discussion of North American history and pre-history ...

Reply
Tara Jordan link
2/3/2014 05:42:29 am

The H2 "America Unearthed" TV shows,IMHO,are valuable in generating frauds,lies,manipulations,fabrications,distortions of North American history and pre-history ...

Walt
2/3/2014 06:20:01 am

I have a hunch the breakdown between "AU is mostly junk that needs a disclaimer or should be off the air immediately" and "AU is mostly junk but provides a venue for learning about history through other means" comes down to those who turned 18 after political-correctness started in '92 (with "I feel your pain") and those who were 18 before that.

I'm in the latter group, and I'm not offended by TV shows, thoughts, or words. I think those who turned 18 after 1992 are a bit more sensitive to words and thoughts, and see everyone as a victim who needs to be protected.

Seeing what some people are willing to blindly believe makes me wonder.

J.A Dickey
2/3/2014 10:38:11 am

ANIMAL PLANET is part of the same vast media empire as H2
and the HISTORY CHANNEL. SW may be forced into a literal
"Figi Mermaid" episode if it can draw in the viewers the way
that special did. Seeing that the SOLUTREANs loom on the
schedule, to be followed by a recap of Nick Cage's Civil War
era movie that had a modern day component to it, the NEXT
two reviews by Jason are going to be erudite & wise classics.

Jason Colavito link
2/3/2014 10:42:08 am

Animal Planet is owned by Discovery Communications, while H2 and History are part of rival conglomerate A+E Networks, in turn owned by Disney and Hearst.

Shane Sullivan
2/4/2014 12:08:26 pm

"I have a hunch the breakdown between "AU is mostly junk that needs a disclaimer or should be off the air immediately" and "AU is mostly junk but provides a venue for learning about history through other means" comes down to those who turned 18 after political-correctness started in '92 (with "I feel your pain") and those who were 18 before that."

That's a good observation, Walt, and there may be some truth to it- but don't forget, the guy who wrote "I'm the Slime" turned 18 in 1958. =P

"I am gross and perverted
I'm obsessed and deranged
I have existed for years
But very little has changed
I'm the tool the government
And industry, too
For I am destined to rule
And regulate you

I may be vile and pernicious
But you can't look away
I make you think I'm delicious
With the stuff that I say
I'm the best you can get
Have you guessed me yet?
I'm the slime oozing out from your TV set"

-Frank Zappa

J.A Dickey
2/4/2014 08:51:58 pm

Tanks, Jason!!!

Me bad. Lumping them together i did dreadfully, yes.
Like assuming MGM + Warner Bros in the 1930s are
one big legal entity, I lumped them together. Pardon my
new post. This is a rewording the lack of an edit function
impels me to do. I'm going to miss Gunn's brain freezes.

if ANIMAL PLANET is EVER part of the same vast media
empire as H2 and the HISTORY CHANNEL, SW may be
forced into a literal "Figi Mermaid" episode if it can draw
in the viewers the way that special did. ((((drumrolls))))

Seeing that the SOLUTREANs and all the hypothetical trips
to and from their coastlines loom largely on the current AU
schedule, to be followed by a recap of Nick Cage's Civil War
era movie that had a modern day component to it, the NEXT
two reviews by Jason are going to be erudite & wise classics.
Am currently watching all of the Spike TV Bigfoot Bounty "eps"
whenever I can, and like other people who came to the same
to the same thought, 2 episodes in a row look like an unload!
Jason in a recent thread kindly provided a link to a neat review!

Clint Knapp
2/3/2014 05:42:44 am

The usual "personal attacks" argument aside, congratulations on all the good publishing news. I'm eagerly anticipating the Argonauts and Cthulhu books and glad to hear you found a home for the ancient text anthology. It'll be a great addition to any library, whether one wishes to use it to source wacky fringe claims or just enjoy the texts themselves on their own merit.

In a mildly unrelated note, I just noticed your copyright line at the bottom of the page needs updating for 2014.

Reply
Jason Colavito link
2/3/2014 05:51:08 am

Thanks for the reminder on the footer. I've updated it.

I certainly hope you enjoy the books when they are released!

Reply
CFC
2/3/2014 05:58:37 am

Congrats on your publishing news" today Jason!
I also see you had a glowing review of you translation of the "Orphic Argonautica". Great!



Reply
J.A.D
2/3/2014 10:19:20 am

WAY TO GO, JASON!!!
COOOOOOOOOOL!!!!!

An Over-Educated Grunt
2/3/2014 05:56:43 am

Phil, you never actually respond to the substance of any of these reviews, so why exactly should we cater to you and your desire for "CLAIMS and FACTS and IDEAS?" Tell you what, you want a higher standard of discourse, try setting said standard. Until then you're failing your own tests.

Reply
Rev. Phil Gotsch
2/3/2014 06:19:23 am

"Over-Educated Grunt" --

Unfortunately, these blogs aren't dedicated to discussion of facts, ideas, and claims … but to debunking, skepticism and snark …

Sadly, the majority of sites on the internet seem to be of that nature …

The snarky de-bunking skeptics already have their conclusions drawn a priori ...

Reply
Only Me
2/3/2014 06:45:06 am

Interesting thought process, Phil.

During our discussion of metallurgy in the Americas (North, Central South), unrelated to my original comment, I presented facts that proved your claims inaccurate. Jason did, too. In the face of archaeological evidence, scientific testing and proper research, you remained unmoved.

In this regard, I understand why you hold Scott in such high esteem. You both get an idea in your heads, and resolutely refuse to entertain the possibility you might on the wrong path. Yet somehow, it's only mainstream academia that remains entrenched in dogma.

And don't even try to deny that Scott already has foregone conclusions about the subjects of his episodes. The way he struggles to make the facts fit these conclusions is painfully obvious.

An Over-Educated Grunt
2/3/2014 06:53:43 am

Boiled down, what you said is:

"No one wants to talk about what I want to talk about, so why bother?"

Way to raise the level of discourse there, buddy. For that matter, on every occasion where I have raised specific, technical, easily verified things related to the show, without commenting, amending, or refuting a single substantive point, you've said I'm being mean - and yes, that's what your comments boil down to.

Jason, I'd like to invoke the argument-repetition clause of the new rules. If there's no further contribution to the debate, I'd suggest that it's not Rev. for Reverend, but Rev. for Revolutions, as in spinning in circles.

Harry
2/3/2014 07:08:17 am

If you don't think that Jason's blog is filled with facts, ideas and claims, then, to paraphrase Inigo Montoya from The Princess Bride, I don't think those words mean what you think they mean.

RLewis
2/3/2014 07:10:24 am

You're playing the same game as SW. You complain about misleading and inaccurate information - but not one example.

B L
2/3/2014 07:13:03 am

Rev. Phil Gotsch:

Again, your comments confuse me. Isn't "debunking" by definition the presentation of facts that counterpoint misinterpretive or speculative reasoning?

Likewise, isn't skepticism useful in the scientific process? Skepticism forces the owner of a hypothesis to strengthen his argument with supporting facts. Certainly, you don't take everyone's word at face value.

To read your comments above about debunking and skepticism one would think that you're suggesting we just accept what Scott Wolter has to say even though it flies in the face of established, supportable history, and even when Wolter himself admits he's making judgments based on gut feeling or a "sense" that he's right.

How do you have an open, honest conversation about a theory without encountering skepticism?

Rev. Phil Gotsch
2/3/2014 08:31:29 am

B L …

Good stuff …

"Skepticism" is an a priori PREJUDICE, in which a question is approached with DOUBT already fully engaged rather than open-minded curiosity …

In my preferred investigative approach, I am asking, "What's going on here … ? What are the data and what do they seem to mean … ? In what other directions do the data, phenomena, objects point us … ?"

Scott Wolter is CORRECT in noting that unfortunately often SOME folks in the academy simple have already formed some opinions RIGIDLY held and so simply REFUSE to consider or reconsider the DATA …

That was the case, e.g., regarding the Kensington Rune Stone, in which EVERYBODY already KNEW that the Rune forms DON'T date to the 14th century (but as it turns out, they DO), that the language and vocabulary are WRONG (but as it turns out, they're NOT), and that the forger made a deathbed confession (but there WAS no such event) …

So when Scott Wolter studied the KRS, nobody had undertaken a FULL and OPEN-minded study, and Scott brought a FRESH eye and MODERN techniques and NEW discoveries to examine a previously scoffed-at PRESUMED "fake" ...

Rev. Phil Gotsch
2/3/2014 08:36:01 am

"Only Me" --

No … Over in another blog you and Jason gave a couple of quick breezy references to use of "bronze" (sheets) in South America among a couple of groups of indigenous people …

Did they mine OES and REFINE copper and tin and then COMBINE those in a furnace to then pour molten alloy into molds … ??? Or did then simply extract and use NATIVE (NATURAL) alloy metal … ???

Jason Colavito link
2/3/2014 08:36:17 am

I take it, Phil, that you're not a fan of the null hypothesis?

Rev. Phil Gotsch
2/3/2014 08:36:56 am

obviously should be, "ores" ...

Jason Colavito link
2/3/2014 08:45:13 am

Bronze is an artificial alloy and does not occur in nature, except in the arsenic-copper type. The Tiwanaku and Wari used copper-nickel-arsenic bronze. The molds they poured into still exist.

B L
2/3/2014 09:42:52 am

Rev. Phil Gotsch:

Okay. Now that we've established a mutually agreed upon definition of skepticism, and we're on the same page....a sincere question....

Would you agree that Scott Wolter himself displays a significant amount of skepticism and close-mindedness when it comes to considering that established, supportable history is correct and contradictory to his own ideas and gut feelings?

I'm not trying to be funny here, but as an example....last season in the AU episode about the Dare Stones....Scott seemed positive that the Dare Stones were authentic. He was noticeably angry when Scott Dawson disagreed and cited concrete evidence to the contrary; that period artifacts were discovered through archaeological study at Croatoan Island.

I don't understand....How can Dawson, a pedigreed Roanoke historian with solid evidence behind him, be considered a de-bunker and skeptic while Wolter, a rookie on the subject of Roanoke who only armed with opinion on the age of rock carvings is the credible, open-minded one.

I don't think Wolter's lack of traction among established academia is due to conspiracy, close-mindedness, or political agenda. Instead, I think Wolter presents ideas that really have no evidence other than his subjective feelings behind them.

If Wolter wants to ask the question "Did a 4000 year old culture in Ireland that worshipped serpents somehow influence a 1000 year old culture in America to worship the same way?", then I would say that is a fine question to ask. But, it's unreasonable to think that just because the question is asked all should accept the possibility without question.

In many cases, he's not even the first to ask these questions. Just because the subject matter might be new to him doesn't mean it hasn't been disproven before. He has admitted on the show that he doesn't do much reading of established history or the writings of those who present an opposing viewpoint to his own.

Look, I'm sure Scott Wolter is a great guy, but he's got to do a little more work. If he wants people to take him seriously he needs to produce some independently verifiable evidence.

If his dating of the KRS is sound then have the dating technique independently verified by others with as much or more knowledge in geology.

When the methods have been verified then academics will be rallying behind him.

It's just not enough to simply ask the questions.

Rev. Phil Gotsch
2/3/2014 09:53:24 am

B L …

As I have posted relentlessly. the "America Unearthed" TV shows are obviously of a DIFFERENT character and origin -- and purpose -- than, say, "NOVA" …

Anyone and everyone is free -- and ought to feel free -- to disagree with, argue about or against, any and all of the claims made or conclusions drawn in the shows ...

B L
2/3/2014 10:02:36 am

Rev. Phil Gotsch:

I'm not talking about AU. I'm specifically addressing the lack independantly verifiable proof Scott Wolter produces when he tries to "sell" his ideas to others.

He pushes his ideas through on charisma, then takes it personally when people don't buy into them.

Leaving AU out of it. Concentrating just on the KRS....has anyone independently recreated Wolter's dating methods on the carving in the KRS? He has made a reputation and a career on the KRS.

If the answer is "no". Then it's not the academics that have a chip on their shoulders. Instead, it's Wolter that has a problem with fair and scientific scrutiny.

Where am I going wrong here?

Rev. Phil Gotsch
2/3/2014 10:12:08 am

B L …

Some scholars accept Scott Wolter's findings on the KRS, some don't ...

The Other J.
2/3/2014 10:30:13 am

Rev. Phil, you said:

"Skepticism" is an a priori PREJUDICE, in which a question is approached with DOUBT already fully engaged rather than open-minded curiosity …

That's cynicism, not skepticism. Ask Gunn if you can see his Oxford.

Rev. Phil Gotsch
2/3/2014 10:33:02 am

"Skepticism" is an attitude/approach of a priori DOUBT ...

B L link
2/3/2014 10:49:35 am

Rev. Phil Gotsch:

Who are the scholars who accept Wolter's work on the KRS? I know of some scholars who have been swayed somewhat by Dick Neilson's work on the runes and grammar, but I don't know of any serious scholar who has been impressed with Wolter's dating methods regarding the age of the carvings. Is it possible to provide names?

The Other J.
2/3/2014 02:53:17 pm

Skepticism is doubt that requires evidence for proof of a claim. Cynicism questions and distrusts the motives of those behind a claim.

If you're honest, you'll acknowledge that these reviews and the vast majority of the comments deal with the facts as presented -- the evidence. That's skepticism. Very few people are all that concerned about Wolter's motives.

However, some of the comments here regularly show disdain and mistrust of the motives of others who challenge Wolter's claims and evidence -- displayed by such rhetoric as "snarky de-bunking skeptics already have their conclusions drawn a priori." (Which, again, is cynicism, not skepticism, snarky or otherwise; skepticism is doubt until the evidence proves otherwise.)

My apologies if this was somehow insulting to you or Gunn, or somehow I called you names. I didn't think challenging someone on their facts constituted personal insults, but I'm learning otherwise. (Does that mean your friend Scott is mean and insulting to academics when he says they're wrong?)

CFC
2/4/2014 01:24:34 am

BL asked the question, "has anyone independently recreated Wolter's dating methods".
The answer is NO! There are no "scholars" who accept his findings because he has not followed the rules required of scholars.

Brent
2/5/2014 06:45:50 am

Rev,
EITHER THE SHOW IS ABOUT FACTS AND IDEAS OR ITS NOT.

IT CANT BE ABOUT FACTS AND IDEAS WHEN YOU WANT IT TO BUT ABOUT ENTERTAINMENT WHEN ITS CHALLENGED.

titus pullo
2/3/2014 06:24:12 am

Jason,

Let it go. Seriously, from someone who has been in corporate pissing matches (I've had over the years been personally insulted, innuendos spread, hate emails, threats) for 20 years...when I ran as a candidate for local school board six years ago and decided to run against the PTA moms/teacher unions that run most school boards, my intelligence, education, professionalism, and yes even my ethnicity/religion were attacked...

Escalating these things does not solve them...walk away and continue your work..the more you are attacked, the more you go up in the minds of a growing readership. As Gandhi said, first you are ignored, then ridiculed, then attacked, then you win...

Not worth getting stressed if Mr. Wolter and you have disagreements ..

Reply
Rev. Phil Gotsch
2/3/2014 06:30:51 am

tutus pullo --

Amen … (What would Cthulhu do … ???)

Reply
Matt Mc
2/3/2014 08:21:27 am

Cthulhu would destroy everything

Gunn
2/3/2014 10:02:01 am

Sounds good to me, titus pullo. Winning is surely my next step.

Probably Wolter's, and Phil's, too.

Reply
Shane Sullivan
2/3/2014 06:50:46 am

Jeez, Jason, you're posting about Scott Wolter AGAIN? It seems like all you ever do is make posts about Scott Wolter, racism, alternative archaeology, alternative history, America Unearthed, Ancient Aliens, ancient astronauts, ancient history, ancient texts, archaeology, horror, Lovecraft, mythology, popular culture, projects, science, skepticism, UFOs, weird old art, and weird things!

Clearly you're obsessed. Why don't you talk about something different for once? =P

Reply
An Over-Educated Grunt
2/3/2014 06:57:00 am

Joking aside, I'd actually like to make that last sentence a serious request. A lot of your blog entries for a while now have felt a lot like "This nonsense AGAIN? We went over this last week!" If you're willing to take requests, I'd like to know more about the literary history of various fringe artifacts, based on yesterday's brief discussion of the Tucson lead crosses.

Reply
Gunn link
2/3/2014 10:06:38 am

Yeah, like stoneholes. We can share an obsession.

Reply
Rev. Phil Gotsch
2/3/2014 07:25:26 am

Stuff*and*things*dug*up are REALLY interesting …

As a budding science student, growing up in a far outer-ring suburb of Minneapolis, I had the best of many possible worlds as a kid … A quick bus trip had me downtown in a half hour, with access to the U of M, the public library, bookstores, and the Science Museum of Minnesota …

But I lived in countryside that offered some genuinely wild places that my buddies and I freely explored … I once found a good-size granite pebble with an incised FACE on it in a wash-out along a gravel road that cut past a large hill … My inexperienced "eye" was intrigued -- but suspicious for several reasons … but I sent it off to the University …

The opinion agreed with mine -- a modern fake (by whom, for what reason … ???) … but the LARGE hill-mound attracted interest of the University, but it was of strictly natural origin ...

But, GOSH, it's FUN … !!!

Reply
An Over-Educated Grunt
2/3/2014 08:33:44 am

That's something substantive, and it leads to further discussion.

Why were they interested in the mound? I am guessing someone thought it was more than natural, and that at least some excavations resulted.

Reply
Rev. Phil Gotsch
2/3/2014 09:46:32 am

Some friends of mine lived on the south slope of the hill, and the road cut was fairly extensive, so I had long been familiar with it, including its geology … So upon my descriptions, including location, that was, as they say, "that" …

But part of what was so cool -- especially as a (THEN) young person -- was being taken seriously as a serious investigative partner …

I have been very fortunate throughout my life to have been blessed by EXCELLENT teachers and colleagues, such that I feel entirely FREE to think, explore, seek and search without shame ...

Gunn
2/3/2014 10:23:48 am

I wish I could report the same, Phil, but I had some truly mean teachers. One used to make me sit in the cubby-hole of her big desk, where her chair was usually tucked in. One day she didn't believe I had to go pee, so it wasn't long before the proof came rolling out for her and my classmates to see.

Another time, a "visiting principal" came and I thought he was patting me on the head and instead, he pulled me out of my chair by my hair! Must've gotten a bad report. Back in those days, you didn't report this abuse...you'd get an extra lickin' for being bad in the first place.

I never trusted my teachers much when I was a kid, either. Once my tongue got stuck on a cold heating oil drum and when I saw the teacher coming around the corner with steaming hot water, I bolted and left a patch of skin on the drum. The kids gave me pencils and erasures and such if I'd show them my tongue. Great times and fond memories?

It took me 20 years and 5 colleges to finally get a degree in Criminal/Social Justice. Lately, I've been interested in the social justice here on this blog. It's a bit lacking, but getting better. More warnings are needed, for one thing, when it comes to the point of name-calling. But even then, one likes to experiment with what she can get away with...much like a child.

Rev. Phil Gotsch
2/3/2014 10:30:12 am

Gunn --

I'm sorry to hear of your terrible luck with teachers in the past … I have long BLESSED my own lucky stars …

But, yes … SOMETIMES the juice ages into an interesting wine, but for some it's all just sour vinegar (let the reader understand) ...

Titus pullo
2/3/2014 10:55:59 am

Gunn,

I've found social justice is neither social nor justice. The older I get the more libertarian I become. And questioning of all authority

Gunn
2/3/2014 12:03:53 pm

I have been programmed by society around me, from youth on, to question authority, being 17 year old in 1969. And I grew up with public riots and very real conspiracies to commit political assassinations. At least I now trust people over 30, since I'm twice that age myself! But I don't question God's authority.

The U. S. social justice system is like our U. S. Criminal Justice system: Not perfect, but one of the best the World has to offer. Social justice is a noble cause, like racial harmony.

Rev. Americanegro
9/6/2016 02:19:28 am

"I have been very fortunate throughout my life to have been blessed by EXCELLENT teachers and colleagues, such that I feel entirely FREE to think, explore, seek and search without shame ..."

Do you have an estimated date for starting that, Phil? I know we're all looking forward to it.

The Other J.
2/3/2014 11:59:12 am

First congratulations on the books. That's definitely good news -- a bumper crop.

Second, this home field advantage is confusing. Hasn't Wolter already said that he'll moderate his blog to only allow comments he feels are constructive? How is a web page curated to support his own feelings and opinions a level playing field? And can we honestly expect that if one of us popped up over that as the Bizarro Rev. Phil and challenged him on the loads of problems in each episode that those comments would get published? Or that he'd respond to them?

Rev. Phil, why don't you go over to his blog and ask him about the presence of other parallel mounds near his Ohio Hanukkah mound and what that means for his menorah -- are the other parallel mounds Jewish too, or not? If not, what makes that one particularly Jewish? What about the shape of the northern wall of the fort being determined by the river, not by the need to look like an oil lamp? And if the dates of the mound are correct, what about the problem with it being a nine-branch menorah, since Jews were using a seven-branch menorah at the time of the mound's construction?

That's just one example that took up a small part of one show. If the Bizarro Rev. Phil were to go to Wolter's blog and ask such questions on every example he presents as evidence in each show, do you seriously think he would respond? Or would those questions just not make it on the board, because they're "negative" (i.e. he doesn't like them)? Besides, if someone did actually challenge him with criticisms of each claim in an episode, it'd probably end up looking like spam, there are so many.

The other problem is that many of the criticisms of claims he presents are old, and easily found. The fact that he just dismisses them as 'academics' who are afraid of 'the truth' makes many of us question his bona fides -- because an honest researcher acknowledges criticisms and comes up with a valid response as to why they don't obtain, or other reasons why those criticisms should be excepted, or explains what he's going to do to try to address them. Just sniffing at critics as being "afraid" tells us nothing except that he's afraid to directly address them, and makes us trust his methods even less.

Remember that he avoided finding the Rock Lake pyramids and dismissed the Rock Lake monster, and then two weeks later used those pyramids and that monster's existence -- both of which he failed to prove -- as EVIDENCE supporting his claims of the Ohio Serpent Mound's provenience. You can't fail to prove something and then pretend what you failed to prove exists and then use it to support something else you're trying to prove -- that's at least sloppy, and borders on dishonest. That's why many of us believe his work isn't to be trusted, and why many of us think going to his blog where he curates comments to fit his views and attitudes is hardly worth doing.

(And what 'truth' does he think is being hidden, exactly? We know Europeans made it to American before Columbus because of L'Anse Aux Meadows, and it literally has changed nothing about how the U.S. operates today -- what's the big secret truth that he thinks is going to shake our foundations? Why won't he just come out and say it?)

Reply
Gunn
2/3/2014 12:29:08 pm

"What's the big secret truth that he (Wolter) thinks is going to shake our foundations? Why won't he just come out and say it?"

The Other J., it's not the big secret truth or a big secret truth that will shake our foundations; it's the possibly overlooked "stuff" which appears like it may be of a possible historic nature.

In other words, the professionals for various reasons aren't considering many possibly historic oddities around the U. S. The big deal, or the big secret, really isn't one-thing big. It's various speculations to consider, albeit many not really worth considering in the manner presented.

Remember that it isn't a crime to bring about fringe speculation as entertainment. I don't mind, myself, calling it entertainment. In my mind, it's entertainment, and it always leaves me digging for more, much as this blog does. I think it is good for this speculation and skepticism to clash, to see what might make sense in this arena of TV entertainment which involves our various perceptions of history.

And there's no reason this clash cannot be both fruitful and friendly at the same time. Meanness is neither required, nor wanted. That's why we have RULES here to follow, man.

Reply
Rev. Phil Gotsch
2/3/2014 01:57:28 pm

*sigh* … Gosh … !!!

Am I surprised that Scott Wolter doesn't care to waste his own valuable -- finite -- time fielding juvenile insults and name calling … ??? Really … ???

Now "bizzaro" is that … ???

Reply
Jason Colavito link
2/3/2014 02:01:06 pm

Phil, "Bizarro" wasn't an insult hurled at you. It's a comic book reference referring to an alternate world version of a person with opposite characteristics from the original.

Rev. Phil Gotsch
2/3/2014 02:05:08 pm

I "got" the reference, as I'm familiar with the character, but yes it WAS an insult ...

The Other J.
2/3/2014 02:38:10 pm

And here Wolter said you can handle yourself. Yet you took that as an insult.

Nothing I said was an insult to you. If you had read that more carefully, I suggested you bring our criticisms of one aspect of one show to Wolter because you're his friend, not one of us, so presumably he won't curate your comments out of his board's existence. Just how do you read that as an insult?

And really, what name-calling? Calling people out for name-calling is a lot like speculating on history -- just because you say it doesn't mean it's real. If you want to cry foul, at least get your foul facts straight.

I don't suspect you will take any of these criticisms over to your friend's blog, just like I don't think they'd get published over there if I wrote them. But these boards are only curated for taste and decency, not disagreements, and if he's got what it takes, he can come here.

Rev. Phil Gotsch
2/3/2014 02:57:07 pm

"The Other J" (whoever you are) …

Let me just reflect that your **attitude** richly illustrates The Problem ...

tom
2/3/2014 08:02:09 pm

/faceplam. That's a highly developed insult gland you've got mr Phil

Brent
2/5/2014 06:48:58 am

I am Bizarro Stormy.

The Black Hole
2/8/2014 01:16:10 pm

Uh, no...that is not what Bizarro is. As a comic book nerd, calling somebody Bizarro in the comic book reference is a big insult to somebody who wouldn't know and that's probably why he is explaining that way.

The Other J.
2/3/2014 02:28:29 pm

If it was as simple as overlooking stuff, it wouldn't be such a scandal in Wolter's mind.

And who's being mean? And who appointed you arbiter of what's allowed in these comments or not? Please Gunn, I'm begging you, for the good of these boards and people who think Europeans built all of world civilization and of decency itself, get over yourself.

Reply
Clint Knapp
2/3/2014 03:59:13 pm

Seconded. It's becoming tiresome having people tell Jason how to moderate his own comment threads. Leave the job to the man himself. If he deems it inappropriate he'll deal with it. Reminding everyone of the rules and calling for deletion of comments is no one's job but his.

Gunn
2/4/2014 05:02:36 am

The Other J., undoubtedly, you are guilty here of provoking ill-will. You keep wanting to attack, even after Jason has taken the time to try to moderate things here. It must be an unpleasant task to continually clean up the meanness and nastiness that wants to keep cropping up.

Before it was easy to see that Tara was provoking things by name-calling, and that was cleaned up. You have come here to the blog over and over again with purposeful ill-will even after Jason has asked for a new beginning.

Truthfully, you seem to enjoy being unpleasant. This must be a tough way to live your approach to life. I expect that several comments in a row here will be deleted, including mine. Which will be a good thing.

The Other J.
2/4/2014 09:00:46 pm

Gunn, I implore you, I beg of you, stop STOP with the name-calling and the insinuations and the MEAN MEAN things you say about me. Does god somehow give you access to my heart, my will, and creepily enough my dreams?

Seriously though, I'll cop to being a wise-ass, but not bearing ill-will, only a corrective temperament when something is clearly off.

Paul G
2/3/2014 03:19:34 pm

Talpiot Tomb symbolism in the Oreo? His claims such as this are what should get most people to realize he is simply another fringe historian full of pointless ideas without doing much more looking into Wolter. Templar symbolism in the the Exxon sign? Why not?
Side Note: Awesome work you do Jason, are you ready for the upcoming episode of AE about the Windover bog people in Florida? This should be a good one for claims of Whites coming to America, rewriting history and some crazy conclusions by Wolter.

Reply
Only Me
2/3/2014 05:15:17 pm

"it's the possibly overlooked "stuff" which appears like it may be of a possible historic nature"

Gunn, for the sake of discussion, I'll stipulate you might be right. However, I also ask that you consider which groups have been included on Scott's list of proposed suspects: Mayans, Englishmen, Minoans, Norse, Celts, Phoenicians, Irish, Knights Templar, Welsh, the Lost Tribes of Israel, Egyptians, Aztecs, Scots, and soon, Solutreans.

For such a diverse list, encompassing centuries of North American discovery and exploration, is it not possible that the reason some of the artifacts attributed to these suspects are overlooked, is because:

1) the lack of provenance of some evidence
2) the number of hoaxes created to prove the appearance of the above suspects in North America
3) the scarcity of actual, confirmable evidence
4) the existence of cultural, ethnic or political motivations to prove the above suspects were in North America?

I sincerely find it hard to believe that any one of the proposed groups could invest such time, manpower and risk into coming to a "New World"...and have such little impact on the environment and indigenous people...that such uncertain undertakings would have no historical record, or be so unimportant, that Columbus's journey would be monumental enough that we still divide North American history between "pre-Columbian" and "post-Contact".

Pre-1492 seems to be the line in the sand for Scott. We already know that others made it here before then. I think the only thing that would truly stun mainstream archaeology, would be the idea that NO ONE found North America before 1492.

Reply
Tara Jordan link
2/3/2014 06:38:01 pm

Do people realize what is going on here?.The Reverend is systematically hijacking every single thread related to Scott Wolter,relentlessly attacking Jason & the individuals supporting him,questioning their motivations,denouncing their attitudes.If you subscribe to articles on America Unearthed/Scott Wolter,you`ll notice that the Reverend intrusion is phenomenal,he "is active" in every single article related to Wolter/America Unearthed,going back as far as January 2013.The man literally spends hours on a daily base,to defend his "personal friend & colleague",Scott Wolter the entertainer.
What is the Reverend leitmotiv?,contrary to what he pretends,he is not interested in debating "facts & ideas",the Reverend never even once, addressed the specific issues & arguments brought by Jason & other participants.The Reverend couldn't care less about facts,the man is the epiphany of intellectual dishonesty.

The Reverent sole intention is not about debating but about derailing/destabilizing the conversations,& he is succeeding.Most participants,including Jason Colavito,spend time and energy justifying themselves.Recently Jason issued a new set of rules for comments,but this is not working.It is the reverend who decides about the conversations orientation,not Jason.
As far as I am concerned I have no intention on playing by the Reverend rules on Jason`s ground.Apparently Jason is unwilling or incapable on bringing order to this own house,I am just a guest,I wont tell him what to do,but as long as the Reverend will be polluting this blog,I`ll refrain from participating (like many others who already expressed their concerns to Jason).This is not an ultimatum,but I sincerely believe that Jason has to make a choice between his readership & a single individual who acts as public nuisance.I am not asking Jason to ban the Reverend,but to impose him to respond to specific issues & arguments,instead of attacking the messengers.If the Reverend is unwilling or ineffective at complying,his comments should be deleted (the same way Jason is removing off topic conversations).

Reply
Matt Mc
2/3/2014 11:52:42 pm

I agree Tara.

Reply
LynnBrant
2/4/2014 12:33:15 am

If you refrain from participating, isn't that exactly what the REV wants? Look, he is just another of Wolter's shills. I know, I used to be one.

Reply
An Over-Educated Grunt
2/4/2014 12:56:10 am

Hopefully you were less repetetive. I've seen robots that had a harder time staying "on message" than Phil. I refuse to call him "Reverend" anything at this point, because I've seen one post he's ever made that had to do with his clerical work, and that was about life as an outpatient mental counselor.

Though as Tara says, seems like he pretty much lives here on days when there's a Wolter-related post. Could put a Revs Per Minute counter on some blog posts (and relax, Phil, before you take offense, on this post alone, you account for 23 of 114 posts, as of this morning; you're running at about one in five of the total number of comments).

RLewis
2/4/2014 12:59:41 am

I believe many posts are just trying to bait others to respond. These arguments have been beaten to death. Perhaps a passive-aggressive approach may more feasible/effective. If everyone stops responding to/acknowledging certain participants, then perhaps they will eventually get the message or just get bored and leave.

"An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind."
-Mahatma Gandhi


Reply
Tom
2/4/2014 01:38:26 am

^ agree

Don't Feed the Troll ;) (especially a concern one)

RLewis
2/4/2014 01:45:36 am

Tom,
Just to clarify, I'm not necessarily singling out any specific person - unless the person continuously posts the same rants/accusations/pointless theories time after time without the least shred of evidence or responding to any reasonable/rational criticism. If ANYONE has any new INFORMATION to share ... then I would be happy to discuss.

Rev. Americanegro
9/6/2016 02:31:00 am

"An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind."
-Mahatma Gandhi

Don't start none, won't be none, and everyone goes home with their eyesight. In the land of the blind the one eyed man is king.
-Rev. Americanegro

p.s. Gandhi slept naked with his 14 year old cousin when he was an adult. And being from South Africa, he was a subcontinental carpetbagger.

Kevin
2/3/2014 07:24:14 pm

I would love to see a marquee sign above Madison Square Garden that reads:
Tara Jordan Vs Scott Walter 15 rounds
Or better yet, someone call Tina Turner and see if she's still hosting
THUNDERDOME events.

Reply
Tara Jordan link
2/4/2014 01:24:12 am

An Over-Educated Grunt,LynnBrant,Matt Mc
RLewis is right,we should ignore him (although I already proposed the same attitude a while ago).Let`s call it "Operation Boycot the Behemoth".

Reply
Matt Mc
2/4/2014 01:30:29 am

I agree Tara, I no longer plan to interact with Rev. He has proven to me he has no interest in discussions.

On a side note I just noticed this morning that Netflix (another long day of rendering for me, so Netflix is my friend) has some speculative history shows that are produced and aired by the Smithsonian Channel. I am just about to sit down and watch SECRETS OF THE VIKING MAP. So I guess this program is part of the cover up of fringe history by the Smithsonian. I don't have Smithsonian Channel at home since that is a different tier than I am willing to pay for from FIOS, but it appears this SECRETS show is a series investigating Fringe topics from the Viking Map to the Crystal Skulls.

Also Jason will you new books be available from Amazon? I have a ton of return credit for my kindle and I would like to get one of your new books.

Reply
LynnBrant
2/4/2014 01:38:40 am

I assume that in the end, the Smithsonian show will debunk the fringe theories. Depending on one's inclination, you can take that as either evidence of their scientific honesty, or see it as more crafty cover-up in plain sight.

Matt Mc
2/4/2014 01:42:13 am

Fair enough I just started it right now so I will say something how it concludes.

RLewis
2/4/2014 01:49:14 am

Jason,
Maybe it would be interesting if you reviewed this (or something similar) to show how a credible documentary-style program is filmed.

Jason Colavito link
2/4/2014 01:58:55 am

Yes, they will be on Amazon. The "Cthulhu" eBook should be there as soon as Amazon has finished processing the publisher's submission to the Kindle store yesterday, with the print book to follow at the end of the month.

The Smithsonian Channel does seem to have a lot of interesting programs, but as Matt Mc noted, it's on a special tier, and I don't need to spend any more money on cable!

Matt Mc
2/4/2014 02:25:13 am

Okay well overall I was very impressed with the SECRETS: OF THE VIKING MAP doc. I found it very balanced. The first 1/4 was dedicated to the discovery of the map and its history of discovery. Then the second quarter is dedicated to why the map could be real. The third quarter focused on why the map could be a forgery. The doc finishes off summarizing the what proceeded it and talking to expert on both side of the real or fake debate. It ends without placing a real or fake determination on the map. Some could view this doc as saying it is leveled to the forgery claim since the evidence and theories of forgery proceed the claims of authenticity but I found it to be very even handed giving both side balanced screen time. It ends stating that either way it is a interesting mystery that asks interesting question.

So far I like what the SECRETS series is appearing to do, there was a wealth of information expressed in the 46 minutes, several experts representing both sides of the issue. If the rest of the series is this well done I hope they can serve as an example to the rest of the Fringe series producers as to how a subject can be presented without a strong bias and still be very entertaining. If anyone has Netflix stream I would say give it a try, it offers a good balance in compared to AU and like programs. Mostly it does promote discussion and discovery and at least IMHO does not forward a Smithsonian conspiracy of covering up fringe ideas and topic.

As a follow up I am going to watch the episode on the SPHINX next


Also sorry for steering a bit off topic, Jason. I am only posting this follow up as an example of how fringe topics could be explored in a better more interesting way.

CFC
2/4/2014 02:27:22 am

Thanks for the summary Matt!!!

RLewis
2/4/2014 05:58:12 am

Jason - OK, how about this?

Tomorrow on Nova, they are exploring a burial chamber in the Roman catacombs. You may be able to compare Nova's approach to AU's examination of the Windover Bog People.

RLewis
2/4/2014 01:32:25 am

Tara,
Perhaps another Best Practice is to note the name of the person you are responding to (as I did above) when posting within a thread. This enables you to respond to relevant questions without acknowledging hijackers.

Reply
Tara Jordan link
2/4/2014 03:57:49 am

RLewis.
Roger That

Tara Jordan link
2/4/2014 05:19:18 am

Matt Mc
It reminds me the program Unbelievable" on Japanese TV, produced & hosted by Beat Takeshi Aka Takeshi Kitano,the famed Japanese movie director.The program used to deal in paranormal craps,they even invited Major Ed Dames on the show in Tokyo.When you consider that Ed Dames only attracts the bottom of the barrel of the lunatic tweakers on US soil,I was surprised to see his arrogant mug on Japanese TV.When I asked people around me what they thought about the show,all agreed it was nonsensical but they call it entertaining.

Reply
RLewis
2/4/2014 05:24:00 am

Tara,
For some (obviously unfounded) reason, I always assumed Japanese TV audiences were big on paranormal programming. Not so?

Tara Jordan link
2/4/2014 05:39:12 am

RLewis
Indeed,this is fascinating as a socio cultural phenomena.Japanese are on one side,some of the most rational people you`ll ever meet,but they love ghosts stories,paranormal stuffs & superstitious lores.I think they approach these issues with a major grain of salt.it`s all about releasing steam intellectually,I guess.

Matt Mc
2/4/2014 06:34:55 am

Tara,

I have seen that show, sadly I only have copies of it in Japanese and my Japanese is very poor to say the least (It is however along with Italian the only other language I can semi understand aside from English). I came across it a while ago when helping research a chapter on Takeshi Kitano on for a friends book on Japanese Crime films.

Brent
2/5/2014 06:51:42 am

I like to think this will work like in The Sphere, where we all use our power to forget about the Sphere, and it goes away forever and everyone lives happily ever after (well...that hasn't died in earlier parts).

Reply
Rev. Phil Gotsch
2/4/2014 02:16:40 am

I found these blog spots by accident, when I did a "Google" to see what people were thinking and saying about the "America Unearthed" TV shows …

I was very disappointed to see that MUCH of the reaction had little to nothing to do with the specific CONTENT of the shows, but was mostly snarky personal attacks on Scott Wolter …

I "get" it that such behavior is sadly common in many internet discussion groups … and seems to be a favorite hobby for some folks, who reportedly feel that it is perfectly acceptable to be subjected to "personal attacks, hate mail, sexual slurs, and threats" ...

Reply
Jason Colavito link
2/4/2014 02:19:18 am

Phil, you're being repetitive. Let me remind you of my rules about hijacking discussion with endless repeated posts that say the same thing. You've made your point.

Reply
Rev. Phil Gotsch
2/4/2014 02:30:37 am

For sure …

As long as the attacks are made and insults are hurled, I am allowed to respond, yes … ??? No … ??? Maybe not ...

terry the censor
2/4/2014 04:55:10 am

@Rev. Phil

Why respond, Phil? You never saying anything substantive, it's all rhetorical tricks and the perversion of definitions.

For someone who called "doubt" a "prejudice" of the close-minded, rather than a method of investigation as established by Socrates, Descartes, etc., you have a remarkable invulnerability to facts and logic.

You are the very thing you complain about.

And it is mighty tiresome and cranky.

And these aren't insults, Phil, these are observations.

LynnBrant
2/4/2014 02:55:09 am

It is simply untrue that thoughts expressed here from the beginning have been personal attacks against Scott rather than attacks on the content of the show. Only a handful of people here know Wolter apart from the show. Wolter chose to wrap the show in his own persona from the outset. He made himself the mind, face and body of the show, and now pleads via his proxy that he should be spared from any sidestream flak from those outraged at the show's content.

Reply
CFC
2/4/2014 02:59:01 am

Very well said Lynn!

Rev. Phil Gotsch
2/4/2014 03:57:20 am

Scott Wolter is the HOST of the "America Unearthed" TV shows, so of course HE will often be front and center … So … ???

I am not aware, however, that he has a "proxy" … Scott speaks for himself, as I do, and I presume, as you do ...

Joe
2/4/2014 03:00:34 am

Phil

Several people here including myself have tried to discuss the ideas, theories and claims per your request But still looking for your response.

Reply
Rev. Phil Gotsch
2/4/2014 03:22:15 am

I understand and appreciate that you feel frustrated that I don't respond as you would PREFER ...

Reply
Harry
2/4/2014 04:59:37 am

No, we are frustrated that you don't respond even in the way you claim to PREFER.

Rev. Phil Gotsch
2/4/2014 05:15:57 am

Well, then … LOL …

I predict that you won't like that response, either ...

Joe
2/4/2014 11:44:00 am

C'mon Phil,

You are constantly talking about discussing the claims instead of the man. I seriously would like to hear your take on some of Wolter's claims. I earlier brought up the Oreo Cookie conspiracy claim. This is not from the show but his book and he also defended it in his blog response. I am interested in your take on this the idea that the Oreo cookie design is trying to hide a Templar conspiracy.

Tom
2/4/2014 06:27:03 am

Joe,

Don't feed the troll buddy ;)

Reply
An Over-Educated Grunt
2/4/2014 05:22:31 am

Precious little of this comment thread has actually been about Scott Wolter, his blog, or the relationship between, for lack of a better term, Us and Them. There's not a lot of cross-pollination between Scott Wolter Answers and here, largely because his blog policy is to ignore anything that can't be simplified all the way to "SCOTT GOOD." There's just nothing there to chew on.

So, since the signal to noise ratio on this one's pretty noisy... can we either get back to the subject, or collectively sit down and shut up?

Reply
Rev. Phil Gotsch
2/4/2014 05:41:36 am

I agree …

Let's get BACK to discussing facts, ideas, and claims … rather than PERSONS ...

Reply
Sir Gunn Sinclair link
2/4/2014 05:46:06 am

We have witnessed here that this blog is not a civil environment, though Jason has endeavored to make it better. It's not working, so it's finally time for me to get off this muddy pathway and take the higher road.

As for myself, I've decided that I have better things to do--other things I should be doing, too, therefore today, with this post, I am giving this bad habit up. I feel like I've pretty much said what I wanted to say during the past year or so, anyway.

I leave with no hard feelings. Good luck, Jason & Co. Good luck, Scott & Co. Peace, everyone. Try to keep the clash clean. I can always be contacted through my web site, above. (Click on the green Sir Gunn Sinclair, above.)

Reply
Rev. Phil Gotsch
2/4/2014 06:16:41 am

Sir Gunn:

Blessings to you ...

Reply
Tara Jordan link
2/4/2014 06:32:15 am

Gunn.You`ll be back soon enough.You`ll miss me ;)
Take care,Mister KRS

Reply
Byron DeLear
2/4/2014 07:39:30 am

Pleasure reading your comments Gunn, come back when your batts are recharged!

Reply
Harry
2/4/2014 11:15:27 am

Gunn,

To my recollection, you have always been a gentleman and have made a reasoned, constructive contribution to the discussion. Go in peace!

Reply
Shane Sullivan
2/4/2014 12:32:54 pm

May your stonehole investigations be ever fruitful and satisfying.

Reply
Brent
2/5/2014 07:13:52 am

I may not be especially talkative here, but I've always enjoyed your thoughts- you've always added a lot to discussions. Farewell! Hope we see you from time to time.

Reply
Martin R
2/4/2014 05:59:14 am

I enjoy reading Jason's AU reviews, his blog as well as his other articles. Here is Jason's purpose, I believe, in keeping tabs of the Scott Wolters of the world, just like the weekly alternative newspapers which nip at the heels of large daily papers, Jason's job is to take fringe historians to task. Not to just accept new ideas without questioning. And if those questions reveal BS, well, whose fault is that? Now, if SW has a problem, instead of attacking the messenger as he has done, attack the findings. If he can prove them wrong or find fault with the JC's reasoning, he's done his job. So far, SW has not proved JC wrong in a factual way. The rest, including the Rev., is just disconnect or white noise.

Reply
Rev. Phil Gotsch
2/4/2014 06:10:19 am

As you know by now, or have reason to know, I FULLY AGREE that these discussions ought to be ONLY about the 'message" and NOT "the messenger," no matter who (s)he is ...

Reply
An Over-Educated Grunt
2/4/2014 06:20:08 am

Agreed. One of the things they teach you early early on in writing any research-based report for publication is to include possible criticisms of your methodology and findings, and to answer them up-front. The typical answer in academia is "clearly this needs more research," but the fact is, Wolter doesn't do even this, and refuses to submit his non-AU work to serious, soul-baring scrutiny, which is the only way it will ever become accepted.

Since I know someone will inevitably criticize this as a personal attack, here's the way it's supposed to work. I apologize for having to put this down, but it's apparent that a baseline for criticizing Scott Wolter has to be established to shut certain mouths.

Step One - Have an idea. This is self-explanatory, and is also called "speculation."

Step Two - Brainstorm ways this idea might work, and ways to test the idea. This is still speculation, and in the hard sciences is called developing the experiment.

Step Three - Conduct research to see if anyone else has checked into your idea. This is called a literature review, and is usually conducted in parallel with Step Two; their actual order is irrelevant.

Step Four - Conduct an experiment, which may range from archaeological field work to smashing concrete cores, to test your hypothesis from Step One.

Step Five - Evaluate the results of your experiment against your hypothesis. This is the Results section of a lab report.

Step Six - Determine whether the results support your hypothesis; if they do, then until the very first round of results that contradict your hypothesis, the hypothesis stands. It isn't confirmed, it just has not been disproved yet.

Step Seven - Share your results with the world, and be prepared to answer criticism of your method, your finding, and results.

I hate that I have to lay out, in non-technical terms, the experimental method, but it's important to identify what Scott Wolter fails to do. Wolter routinely fails to execute on Step Three, the literature review, and assumes that if it's new to him, it's just new, period, and Step Seven, being prepared to answer criticism. For anyone to do this, then accuse someone else of "bad scholarship" because they conduct a literature review, shows profound ignorance of what good science looks like.

This criticism is not limited to America Unearthed, lest this become "It's not NOVA." It extends to his "Hooked X" book and his other publications, which, fair disclosure, I've read his report on the Bat Creek Stone and found it un-convincing because he refuses to divulge or standardize his methodology... which, again, Step Seven.

Reply
terry the censor
2/4/2014 06:33:40 am

Good stuff, Grunt.

On the weekend, I was watching Mythbusters with my 11-year old and pointed out how they frequently referenced previous research and tests of the featured myths.

If entertaining shows such as Mythbusters can do it, surely Scott Wolter can do it.

An Over-Educated Grunt
2/4/2014 06:42:18 am

Terry -

MythBusters has done a number of "callback" episodes, where they answer criticism from pretty much anyone willing to offer it. The show is sensationalized, I admit; they like the big boom and the flashy experiment, but their process is solid, and they do a good job of documenting what they're doing. Compare the three or four completely unrelated myths tested in a single episode of MythBusters to the supposed one possible course tested on AU, and AU comes up short because there isn't a solid link between (off the cuff) the Grand Canyon and Burrows Cave, and the show relies on a quick bait-and-switch to hope the audience doesn't notice that the two aren't related. In this regard, the new season of AU seems much weaker to me than the first season, where (and memory may fail me here) it seemed they focused much more on single sites.

The Other J.
2/4/2014 09:18:01 pm

Just wanted to point out that the method you identify is basically the same methods used in humanities research. The main difference is Step Four, where argument to prove a case or claim takes the place of experiment.

Which shouldn't come as a surprise, since both the contemporary scientific method and the philosophy behind humanities research take a lot from John Dewey and the pragmatist school of philosophy. The fall-out from Dewey's approach resulted in Stephen Toulmin's model of argument, which as it happens Jason is well-versed in (it's where he gets his use of "warrant" from).

I always liked that those two seemingly diametric modes of inquiry -- sciences and humanities -- share the same origins with regard to how they go about proving their claims.

Harry
2/5/2014 12:33:46 am

I would add that Wolter's execution of Step Four is faulty, if his analysis of the Bat Creek Stone is any indication.

An Over-Educated Grunt
2/5/2014 07:55:04 am

The Other J -

I'm trying to practice what I preach about not speaking outside my expertise. I'm an engineer, so what I know is the hard-science side. I didn't know about Dewey, though. Learned something today.

Harry -

It's impossible to say for certain on the Bat Creek Stone, because what he's willing to share of his methodology is basically "trust me, I'm a geologist." If his methodology for archaeopetrography is sound, then it should be subject to peer review, shaken, torn at, poked with sharp sticks, whatever it takes to find the holes in it, then the holes should be closed and the method should be added to the general body of knowledge.

I know this invites comparison to the Newton-Leibniz controversy, but there are two things I'd like to point out in that comparison: Newton did share his findings routinely when he considered them polished enough, and was able to show his work dating back decades before he published his version of the calculus, and the stubborn refusal by Newton and his partisans to engage Continental science because of the calculus dispute set the progressive march of English science back a generation compared to French and German scientists. Obviously, archaeopetrography isn't going to set science in the US back a generation, but it illustrates the dangers of being secretive and proprietary regarding your work and your knowledge.

Harry
2/5/2014 11:18:36 pm

Grunt,

Truly, thank you for the response -- real food for thought. Admittedly, I based my remark on the assumption that he revealed the relevant evidence disclosed by his analysis of the Stone and my ability to imagine alternative explanations for his findings that are consistent with forgery. I am also, admittedly, not a scientist, so maybe am I just not aware of why these possibilities are implausible. I am planning to ask him about it in the near future, but I may rephrase the way I ask the questions as a result of considering your response to me. Thank you again.

LynnBrant
2/4/2014 07:29:23 am

I remember when Scott swore to me that if he sold a tv program, he would never make it akin to Monster Quest. I guess he didn't. Monster Quest spends 45 minutes with scary footage about the black panther or whatever. They interview sincere witnesses and display evidence. But, in the last few minutes, they systematically refute the evidence and show that in fact, the black panther is just a house cat. America Unearthed doesn't do that.

Reply
RLewis
2/4/2014 08:05:32 am

Lynn, so what specifically did he dislike about MQ that he wanted to avoid in his program?

Reply
LynnBrant
2/4/2014 08:38:16 am

It was I who used MQ as a benchmark in that discussion. He just said he would be all about science and hard evidence. Little did I know that the difference between the two shows would be with Monster Quest looking more objective and more fact-based.

An Over-Educated Grunt
2/4/2014 08:56:31 am

Father Bill Bosh was going to post, but that'd be poking the bear needlessly.

I think if MonsterQuest had developed a core cast, rather than AA-style talking heads, it might have looked more like AU. But then again, they could have gotten Josh Gates, and the entire thing could have been done with a nod, a wink, and a smirk. Part of Wolter's problem is that he takes himself so damn seriously on camera. I'm curious if he's the same way off camera, but one of the three people who comments on this blog who has ever spoken to him will tell us he walks on water, one of them will tell us that Jason is lying to us about the definition of the word "attack," and the two of them will accuse the third (that's you, Lynn) of being the man who drove Scott Wolter to drink.

So, with all that - does he act like there's a stick firmly wedged in his fourth point of contact off-camera, too?

LynnBrant
2/4/2014 09:31:02 am

Scott is a very magnetic and likable guy. You couldn't want anybody better to have a few beers with. But early on he was described to me as having a runaway ego. That's a fact. Disagree with him and he goes all Jekyll and Hyde on you.

Paul G
2/4/2014 08:16:50 am

AU sounds like monster quest up until the point of refuting evidence. Insted he takes his findings and "research" ,draws conclusions by making his findings fit his theories, and state that academia is hiding something. So I guess he stayed true to his word.

Reply
Matt Mc
2/5/2014 07:15:48 am

Very true Wade handles criticism and disagreement respectfully.

Matt Mc
2/4/2014 08:30:08 am

MonsterQuest also was better paced than AU and had better production values (not much mind you).

Reply
Rev. Phil Gotsch
2/4/2014 09:46:47 am

Being a guy, I do more channel surfing than show watching … So I have given only a few cursory curious glances at shows like "Monster Quest" and "Finding Bigfoot" and "Fascinating Tunnels" (or whatever that show is) and "Ghost Search" …

I think one of the BEST is that fishing show, "River Monsters," with Jeremy Wade … Being a fish aficionado, THAT one had me *hooked* ...

Matt Mc
2/4/2014 10:37:06 am

I quite agree with River Monsters, I think that show is excellent. There is a good amount of interesting information and exploration of myth. I highly recommend the two hour episode dedicated to the Loch Ness monster and have used it as what I believe to be an excellent example of a proper exploration of a Fringe myth.

Walt
2/4/2014 01:23:26 pm

I agree as well, River Monsters is a great show. But I wouldn't liken it to Monster Quest or AU at all. Others apparently think more highly of Monster Quest than I do. To me, it's exactly what I think of when I watch AU. Neither has ever found what they were seeking by the end of the show.

River Monsters always gets to the point and makes a decision based on what Jeremy found out. It also doesn't present any dubious information as facts. I don't remember the Loch Ness Monster episode. The episodes I've seen have all been about reported attacks by unknown "mosters" in the water, which he then goes fishing for.

Matt Mc
2/4/2014 02:10:13 pm

Walt, the Loch Ness episode was a special 2 hour one they did at the end of the last season, It was the first one they did about a "mythical" monster. I wont spoil the episode since Animal Planet has reaired it a few times but suffice to say he does not find the Loch Ness Monster but he does come up with some very plausible explanations as to what could be the source of the monster myth. It like all the other episodes involves the catching of large fish.

The Other J.
2/4/2014 09:56:27 pm

There was another River Monsters two years ago (season four finale, I think) where he went deeper and deeper into Guyana along the Essequibo River, and ended up discovering a new species of arapaima that hadn't been identified in that part of South America before. He suspected that since the Essequibo was so separate from the Amazon system the arapaima might be different, so he sent off a scale sample for DNA tests, and it turned out it was an undocumented species.

It was another two-hour special, and one of the fun things is it was sort of like his Wizard of Oz or Stalker episode, where he kept getting deeper and deeper into this uncharted jungle zone, and all along the way kept encountering and catching fish that in the past he'd spent entire episodes hunting. It was almost like a "best of" episode.

And he topped it off by going to this gorgeous waterfall at the end, Kaieteur Falls. The overhead camera from I'm guessing a helicopter took a massive swoop in from above, and in HD the whole shot could make your stomach drop.

For me, it was way more entertaining than the Loch Ness episode (which wasn't horrible).

Matt Mc
2/4/2014 11:01:38 pm

Other J,

Yeah that episode is fantastic, I think it echoed (deliberately perhaps) Conrads Hearts of Darkness. Overall it was a more interesting episode since the struggle of making it up the river was more dramatic.

The interesting thing of River Monster and how is relates to AU are the similarities between the two shows. Both feature a main protagonist who is trying to find the truths behinds stories, Both are "schooled" individuals, Both travel to locations and interview people to better understand their investigation, both do field work, Both of what we have called here "manly men" and both sometimes work with extraordinary claims. The difference is that Wade uses his experience and training in a disciplined manner to help uncover (or angle in his case) the truth. Wade also respects and tries hard to understand the cultures he is involved with Wolter makes no attempt to do so in fact he has been shown to berate those who disagree. If only Wolter could learn from Wade's approach to a subject and interviewee's and learn the speculation can lead to truth as long as you let the facts and what you uncovered open the path in front instead of approaching it with a predetermined outcome and skewing the facts to meet that outcome.

Walt
2/4/2014 11:23:59 pm

I actually think Jeremy Wade of River Monsters is more like Jason and this blog than SW and AU. The purpose of RM is to debunk myths and folklore, and he's very logical and respectful during the process (I lost count of how many languages he speaks). SW just retells myths and folklore, presents faulty "scientific" logic as evidence, then ends the show by repeating that he still believes in the original myth that he didn't prove or disprove.

AU and RM are both on TV so there are some similarities, but SW doesn't try to debunk anything. He rebunks, if that's a word.

River Monsters is actually another example of a fun, educational show that's factual and on commercial television. I guess there are a few.

Matt Mc
2/4/2014 11:35:40 pm

Walt I quite agree you said what I was meaning to say just did convey it properly.

Other J, I forgot to mention they use a little drone copter for those shots. I was at discovery working when they got the copters for River Monsters in and got to watch people play with them on the roof of the building. I was lucky enough to have my introduction to the show at discovery channel itself. I worked on the short teaser add spots that Discovery used for the first two seasons of the show, sadly I did not get to meet any of the crew or Wade himself but I do admit to feeling a stronger connection to the show since I did some work that was based on it.

Walt
2/5/2014 12:03:33 am

No Matt, you conveyed it properly, I just wanted to point out how much River Monsters is like this blog. I do agree with all the similarites you mentioned between River Monsters and AU. I guess the format of the shows are similar, but the purpose of the shows differs greatly. Jeremy Wade really wants to learn the truth. We were saying the same thing, I just thought readers of this blog might be interested in knowing how similar that show is, except with big fish.

The Other J.
2/5/2014 06:41:07 am

"Yeah that episode is fantastic, I think it echoed (deliberately perhaps) Conrads Hearts of Darkness."

Arapaima, by jove!

I would love to see Wolter undergo a shamanic ritual in the hopes of better finding a rock, even if he doubts its efficacy.

I like the RM/AU parallels, and they work right up to one specific point of difference: When Wade gets a just-so story, he expresses the possible doubts in the voice-over narration and then discusses what the thing could be that gave rise to the stories he's heard. When Wolter gets a just-so story, he generally accepts it (hook line and sinker?) and denigrates those who may have doubts. Plus the show goes out of its way to find someone for him to disagree with in a bullying manner -- it ain't cool watching Wolter stand over someone, look down at them, and lecture them about how they're wrong without actually having provided sufficient evidence to either prove his claim or disprove their criticisms. I can't imagine Wade standing over someone and yelling at them.

yakko
2/4/2014 01:46:26 pm

I'm a considerable fan of "Monster Quest", for the reasons stated: that it at least gives lip service to the idea that the monster of the week might not be all it's cracked up to be. I still watch old episodes when they rerun on one of the History channels, which still has some watchable stuff during the day. It does annoy me that, especially later in its run, every other episode seemed to be some kind of Bigfoot-type creature, which I don't bother to watch most of the time, since nearly all such stories are much the same: someone sees a bear at a distance, finds some coyote hair on a bush, takes casts of fake or misinterpreted "footprints", takes blurry photos of a pile of leaves, or whatnot. Then he takes this "evidence" to an "expert" who, after testing them, sagely declare that these artifacts match nothing known to science. Or worse, that the DNA exactly matches a Sasquatch-type creature. It's like watching a bunch of sitcoms, only without the laugh track. What was I talking about, again? Oh yeah. My favorite bit on the show is when they put a camera on an animal similar to what they're looking for, and set it loose in a likely environment, hoping that the giant rat in the sewer will show up on RatCam, or that the hogzilla willl make an appearance for HogCam.

I still haven't made it through more than about ten minutes of any "America Unearthed" episode, so I can't really compare the two, but MQ has the advantage in not being a total bore.

Reply
Terry Melanson link
2/4/2014 09:43:54 am

After Wolter's theories have been long forgotten, there will still be a solid body of work at this site - or the Wayback machine - for years, if not decades to come. It's an important contribution that's appreciated and referenced by many. The work stands on its own, to the chagrin of the Wolter, his supporters, and the ancient alien pseudo-science crowd.

I consider it a public service and a much-needed antidote to the almost daily lies perpetrated upon the viewing public.

Reply
Rev. Phil Gotsch
2/4/2014 10:15:45 am

To be realistic, of course the writing of history ("historiography") is ALWAYS a work in progress, endlessly subject to re-writing and re-interpretation and revision … NOBODY knows EVERYTHING about "what really happened" …

Reply
Terry Melanson link
2/4/2014 10:50:35 am

Source criticism underpins the very notion of historiography. It's something that Jason excels at and welcomes from all.

Martin R
2/4/2014 10:52:21 am

And therein is the difference between speculation and proper research. Take the last episode of AU, instead of research or laying a proper foundation to the tribes of ancient Israel, SW brings in a Rabbi who adds nothing but a look back at the Jews is Spain. It's like late-night talk radio.

Paul G
2/4/2014 10:59:00 am

I agree with you that history will always be changing and has the possibility to be rewritten, but isn't the thought nobody knows everything stretching it a bit?

Rev. Phil Gotsch
2/4/2014 02:20:42 pm

One of the most famous instances of re-written history is the discovery that apparently probably the Icelandic Sagas telling of Bjarni Herjolfsson's accidental discovery of "America" and subsequent events … are essentially true and correct ...

Jason Colavito link
2/5/2014 12:53:05 am

The Icelandic sagas were recognized as "essentially true" back in the 1830s and have been featured in history textbooks ever since. (I recently posted about a high school textbook from the early 1900s to that effect.) Surely that can't be the best example of "rewriting" the history books. Back then the entire Paleoindian culture was completely unknown and arguably a bigger rewrite of the history books.

Rev. Phil Gotsch
2/5/2014 01:44:49 am

The Icelandic Sagas were written LONG before "1830" and "1830" was a long time after "1492" ...

Jason Colavito link
2/5/2014 02:01:00 am

You misunderstood me, Phil. I'm trying to say that scholars and "academics" accepted the Norse sagas as fundamentally true in the 1830s. I did not say that the sagas were written in the 1830s. So, the "textbooks" were rewritten in the 1830s. Therefore, it's a bad example of your point.

Rev. Phil Gotsch
2/5/2014 02:39:56 am

Jason …

Exactly MY point, you see … It took several CENTURIES for The Icelandic Sagas to be taken seriously as authentic HISTORY ...

Jason Colavito link
2/5/2014 02:52:45 am

You are speaking of the centuries before 1830? Well, if we're re-litigating the historiography of the 1500s-1700s, you'd have a lot of work to do. Modern historiography doesn't really begin until the 1800s. I was under the impression when you and Wolter complain about textbooks and academics you are speaking of the past, say, 100 years, not the past thousand. Otherwise, this is like blasting doctors for taking "centuries" to accept that disease had a cause other than unbalanced humors.

Rev. Phil Gotsch
2/5/2014 06:50:05 am

Jason …

So … You suggest that prior to 1830, nobody had heard of Chris Columbus, either … ??? Really … ???

Jason Colavito link
2/5/2014 06:55:14 am

What on earth are you talking about? You started this by saying that history had to be rewritten when the sagas were accepted as true accounts of the Norse discovery of America. I gave you a date for when that happened, c. 1831 (in the Antiquitates Americanae by Rafn, which most 19th c. scholars accepted as having made a good case that the sagas were fact-based) and told you that this was a very long time ago and that it was a bad example of "new" material since it happened nearly 200 years ago.

I have no idea what you are talking about after that.

Rev. Phil Gotsch
2/5/2014 07:12:41 am

Jason --

You think that the NORSE "discovery" of "The New World" was already so well accepted and established in 1830, such that EVERYBODY already KNEW that Chris Columbus was a LATECOMER to the adventure … ??? So, "Columbus Day" was ALWAYS acknowledged as … a SHAM … ???

Jason Colavito link
2/5/2014 07:16:01 am

By the late 1800s, yes. I quote from the opening lines to McCarthy's "History of the United States," a standard high school textbook from 1919: "The first white men who ever came to America were Northmen. Our continent was discovered through accident in the year 1000..." So regardless of when you'd like to fix the date of acceptance, it was long before you or I was born.

Rev. Phil Gotsch
2/5/2014 07:26:11 am

Jason --

I think you and I will continue to disagree on the universal embrace of The Sagas as AUTHENTIC history from their first being written right up to modernity ...

Jason Colavito link
2/5/2014 07:29:27 am

They aren't embraced as literally true even today. (They are not news reports by any stretch.) But scholars have used them as evidence for Norse presence in North America from 1831 to today. It's in the very textbooks you said needed to be rewritten! It's dishonest, though, to conflate this with the entire thousand-year history of the sagas.

Rev. Phil Gotsch
2/5/2014 07:37:48 am

Jason …

No … YOU equate "history" (written and re-witten) with "textbooks" … I do not ...

Brent
2/7/2014 06:45:39 am

I think you broke phil. His brain-thoughts don't match up no more.

terry the censor
2/7/2014 07:24:07 am

@Rev Phil

Give this one up, Phil. What you are doing is "dishonest," as Jason said.

And, again, that's not ad hominem slur, it's a dictionary-blessed description of your MO.

Athanasius Kircher
9/6/2016 02:39:29 am

"To be realistic, of course the writing of history ("historiography") is ALWAYS a work in progress, endlessly subject to re-writing and re-interpretation and revision … NOBODY knows EVERYTHING about "what really happened" …"

That's what every wrestling coach, reverend, nudist, and drifter says in court.

kevin
2/4/2014 05:59:12 pm

Based on the previous dialogue I'd wager more than one person logged off their computer steaming.
I admire how the website is designed neatly giving a summary to each episode to America Unearthed. However, the day after the show airs everyone logs in and blasts the shows topic, criticizes the host, and challenges his credentials. Some people appear particularly vicious, like Scott just ran over their dog or something. How in any way is that constructive I wonder? I certainly don't subscribe to all of Wolters theories either, but science isn't always correct. Who hasn't heard the saying not to be so open minded that your brain falls out? Yet it fails to advise not being a mindless drone either . Anyone remember when doctors thought cigarettes were healthy?
My point is, Wolter does bring up some curious issues that can be discussed objectively.
For example it's been suggested the Mayans disappeared due excessive warfare, overpopulation and exhausted resources. Sound familiar?
Now the 1st or 2nd episode of AU was regarding the Mayans migrating into southeastern USA. Some folks blew off the idea. I ask you to review that episode of AU again then look up the people of Poverty Point. I'd think you would have to admit it's a logical possibility. That was my conclusion. I hope someone out there will correct me if I'm wrong. I never enjoyed inserting my foot in my trap.

Reply
Only Me
2/4/2014 08:48:19 pm

Kevin, I won't say you're wrong, but everything I've found on Poverty Point places the height of the culture between 1500 to 700 BCE. The Maya didn't fall until about 900 to 950 CE, so there is a huge difference of about 1650 years between them.

Like with the idea the Mississippians are descended from the Maya, or, as Scott concluded, the Aztecs descended from the Mississippians, I don't see a possible connection.

Reply
kevin
2/5/2014 10:33:38 pm

Only Me, I do see your point. However, determining the age of ancient civilizations is difficult at best. Archeologists are forced to date them at the "height" of their existence. I was thinking more along the lines of a gradual assimilation. Hell, maybe they sent in a couple clans to scope out the cost of housing or crime rates.

Only Me
2/6/2014 04:48:47 am

Trouble is, 700 BCE is roughly where the PP culture ends. At that time, the Maya were busy extending into Guatemala and the Yucatan, since the Olmecs were on their way out. Following this, the Maya suffered the Preclassic Collapse about 100 CE, and didn't start becoming the empire of multiple city-states we're most familiar with, until 250 CE.

I just don't see them moving that far north into the southern U.S., when they were busy expanding across Central America before suffering the first collapse of their culture. Too much territory, too little artifacts.

Jason Colavito link
2/4/2014 10:52:49 pm

It's important to remember that this is a blog with a comments section, not a curated salon, and I don't control what people choose to say in response to my work.

To your point: Wolter's specific claim about the Maya was that they had built a city in Georgia and ruled over the Native people as colonial masters. That is in fact a testable claim, and not a single Maya artifact has ever been found in Georgia. Poverty Point was thousands of years too early to have anything to do with events c. 1000 CE.

Reply
kevin
2/5/2014 11:05:57 pm

Jason,
I'm aware of the nature of the blog . If it appeared I held you responsible I apologize.
I mentioned to another subscriber that I was thinking more along the lines of a gradual assimilation. Although they certainly assist, it seems like too many determinations are made based on discovered artifacts. Artifacts will evolve as your environment/culture changes. An elaborate ornamental head dress or statue is no practical purpose if you're migrating. It would be bringing a crystal wine glass on camping trip. Here's strange comparison, but consider the "artifacts" you'll find in a bachelor pad as opposed to the family of five household.

Mandalore
2/6/2014 12:43:19 am

Artifacts are vital in tracing population movements and influences. You are correct that taking things with you is often not feasable. However, once a person gets where they are going, they start making things like they did at home bit with local materials. If there were Mayans in Georgia or thereabouts there would be artifacts with Mayan features made from local materials. In time, they would diverge from the original forms and be influenced by local culture, but still with some Mayan features recognizable. This process can be seen among the Philistines who were originally from the Aegean region. Their artifacts were produced locally but with strong indications of their proto-Greek origins.

An Over-Educated Grunt
2/6/2014 01:00:29 am

kevin -

What Mandalore said - permanent settlement is rather different from a temporary camp, and even a "temporary" settlement like L'Anse-Aux-Meadows, which like a lot of Norse settlements was generational, with the site shifting every 20 years or so, leaves a measurable footprint. A civilization that's used to working in stone, upon moving from A to B, is not going to forget how to build stone structures when they get to their new location, and there are plenty of workable stone deposits throughout Georgia. It's quite possible that Mesoamerican traders might have traveled throughout the Americas, but they, as you said, would have been temporary occupants, traveling light and not leaving a heavy footprint. A permanent settlement, which is what Thornton and Wolter argue for, is very different. Even settlements which do not thrive leave behind foundations, middens, post-holes, their dead, you name it - the footprint is much, much larger, and it's not a temporary-occupancy footprint. The failed colony at Roanoke, for instance, which was both small and short-lived, left behind a still extant earthwork and postholes. At Jamestown, from 1607-1610, when the colony was in raw survival mode, they left the remnants of a palisade, a well, a dozen formal graves, the foundations of a communal barracks, a garbage pile, glassware, weapons... the list goes on and on.

You commented earlier that archaeologists can only date a culture at its height; this is not so. For specific types of artifact, once a few have been identified, an evolutionary trail can be developed. This is a lot of how we define successive paleoindian cultures, based on how sophisticated their tools were. There's more to it than that - you may not be able to date an artifact precisely, especially inorganic artifacts, but you can date the surrounding soil when it's found by a number of means, so you can at least say when it went in the ground, if you can't say when it was made originally.

Terry Melanson link
2/5/2014 12:49:41 am

Re: Rev. Phil Gotsch's "Icelandic Sagas ... essentially true"

Yes, and the most promising route for the Vikings (since they settled the west tip of Newfoundland) is the Strait of Belle Isle and into the Gulf of St. Lawrence, then into New Brunswick in the Miramichi valley which is full of butternut trees and wild grapes - the most likely place for "Vinland". Going East around the treacherous Newfoundland coast and into the more treacherous Atlantic sea doesn't fit the evidence of the location of initial settlement. L’Anse aux Meadows was already in the interior. It's a hop skip and a jump to then explore the Maritime provinces of Canada.

If Wolter spent his Viking episode rummaging around New Brunswick and the Maritimes, in Canada, instead of Martha's Vineyard, in America (2,000 miles away in unlikely directions), then he would actually have produced a valid episode for once.

Reply
Rev. Phil Gotsch
2/5/2014 01:47:30 am

Apparently there are good indications that The Norse Folk "rummaged" around in numerous places in pre-Columbian North America, as indicated by the discovery of several rune stones ...

Reply
Rev. Phil Gotsch
2/6/2014 01:49:43 am

In our day, we have many very accurate MAPS and historical accounts extending over several centuries … so of course it's easy for US to guess and second-guess as to where *they* SHOULD have gone, the places they OUGHT to have explored, etc. ...

Reply
An Over-Educated Grunt
2/6/2014 02:01:14 am

And in their day, they had ships powered primarily by muscle and wind, that even among the most proficient maritime civilization of the age were not ocean-going vessels. The simplest explanation is best; given the option of equally well-resourced areas within an easy voyage, why claim they were in Massachussetts or, even worse, Oklahoma, when there's no evidence of any intermediary stops, which would have been recommended for coastal voyages, or absolutely required for long journeys up the Mississippi watershed?

A typical Norse sailing "day" was a hundred miles coastal or two hundred ocean-going, so that the Orkney Islands were a "day" west of Norway. This has been calibrated across several sagas which documented journeys and their length, using multiple reconstructed ships with only sail and muscle, and found to be reasonable. Thus, finding, say, the Leif Ericsson Stone at about the limit of a week's sea-sailing is possible, but there's no reason to believe it's probable, since the competing explanations are "it's a fake," based on a few eyewitness accounts and our inability to validate it, and "it's true," based on wishful thinking - and the Leif Ericsson Stone is the only one of the AU examples that is even remotely plausible!

I would love for it to be true, but it needs more evidence in favor of it being true, which is to say any evidence, to outweigh the other explanation. Find examples of camps, with their attendant litter, find examples of discarded tools in situ (even nails would do it!), find evidence that isn't built on clouds, and you've got a compelling case. In the meantime, it's just wishful thinking.

Rev. Phil Gotsch
2/6/2014 03:27:56 am

We would love to have a clear trail of all the campsites of all the Viking and later Norse explorers, but it isn't realistic to EXPECT to find them all …

Even in the case of, say, the much more recent Lewis and Clark expedition, which produced written journals and maps, we still don't know the location of EVERY one of their campsites, even though we DO know more or less where to look for them …

So does it really matter whether or not we can ever pin down the EXACT location of the birth of Snorri Karlsefni … ??? I don't think so … But I see no reason to doubt the correctness of the report ...

An Over-Educated Grunt
2/6/2014 03:50:53 am

Phil -

1. You do understand the difference between "all" and "any," don't you? Finding all the campsites is unrealistic; the survival ratio for artifacts is about 1%. You say you've done graduate work in paleontology, you should know this. Finding any artifacts, however, is completely possible.

2 - What does Snorri Thorfinnsson have to do with the probability of Norse incursion anywhere but L'Anse-aux-Meadows? I say show me a believable trail to any of the other putative Norse sites, and you bring up someone who is supposed to have been born in Vinland - which, so far as the historical record is concerned, is L'Anse-aux-Meadows, because there is no substantive reason to believe it is anywhere else.

3 - If we know the rough locations where, as you brought up, Lewis and Clark's campsites are, we can find the sites themselves given the will and resources to expend on them. That you or I don't have the will or resources doesn't mean that they don't exist, and finding things from only rough clues is in fact how L'Anse-aux-Meadows was located, or for that matter how Troy or Tutankhamen were located.

You seem to have a flawed definition of "substantive," or "believable," or for that matter "facts." Speculation is not fact. Fact is testable and provable - see my comment on the sailing "day," it's been evaluated against textual evidence several times, and gives a basis for measuring how far a knarr might travel in a given time. Speculation, by definition, is not testable. If you want to speculate, go right ahead. Just don't get upset when someone goes "where's your evidence?" then ignores you when you come up dry.

Rev. Phil Gotsch
2/6/2014 04:01:48 am

The Viking / Norse artifacts and sites that have turned up in North America have all been found by sheer luck, stumbled upon by accident, and there could very well be MANY that haven't been noted much less investigated ...

Terry Melanson link
2/6/2014 04:32:30 am

Just thought I'd add a link to this Parks Canada webpage about "L’Anse aux Meadows" not being Vinland per say:

http://www.pc.gc.ca/eng/lhn-nhs/nl/meadows/natcul/vinland.aspx

Wild grapes and butternut trees don't grow there. So Vinland is south of the settlement. The northern most location, being New Brunswick (as I mentioned earlier).

An Over-Educated Grunt
2/6/2014 05:47:26 am

The one confirmed Norse site in North America was found by Helge Ingstad, not dumb luck. Ingstad's work was based on his own interpretation of the Vinlandsaga, and had solid reasoning behind it. The putative Norse sites in the United States lack that support. The closest to supported by the behavior of the people in question is the Leif Ericsson Stone, which, as I recall, has at least one eyewitness account saying it's a forgery.

Rev. Phil Gotsch
2/6/2014 10:27:51 am

Really … ???
The Sagas are THAT accurate in geographic detail … ??? So we ought NOT doubt their veracity …

Rev. Phil Gotsch
2/6/2014 01:24:00 pm

Anyway, as i understand it, the site was already known (but as a presumed Native village) and the Norwegian guy was led to it by a local guy named George Decker … ???

An Over-Educated Grunt
2/7/2014 12:33:08 am

Yep, that's what happened. Ingstad read the Icelandic sagas in their original, came to the conclusion that "Vinland" was the "Land of Meadows," not the "Land of Vines," and began looking for a sheltered anchorage on a peninsula within the correct sailing distance of Iceland. When he started looking, he found a local who pointed him at some mounds, which turned out to be the sites he was looking for. So, in order, based on my discussion earlier:

1 - Develop hypothesis (land of meadows, north of traditional suspects)

2 - Develop possible means of execution (evaluate sailing distances and probable preferences based on what we know of Norse settlement)

3 - Conduct literature review (re-read the Vinlandsaga, check if anyone had looked there)

4 - Conduct experiment (search area, including talking to the locals, because it's cheaper than spade tests)

5 - Evaluate results (why, goodness me, that's a nail I found!)

6 - Compare results to hypothesis (... a square nail, of typical Norse make!)

7 - Publish your results (... Aaaand that's L'Anse-aux-Meadows.)

So which part of that is "sheer luck or accident?" Even your description says he was pointed at it by George Decker, who, not knowing his parents, it is somewhat impolite to call an "accident."

Rev. Phil Gotsch
2/7/2014 01:41:48 am

The specific place when Mr. Decker took the Norwegian guy was already known as a site of archaeological interest, but it had not yet been "dug" …

An Over-Educated Grunt
2/7/2014 01:49:33 am

Even from your own anecdote about the completely natural mound above, that's how most archaeological sites are found, not dumb luck. Someone reports finding an artifact, be it an arrowhead or a nail or a skull, and an archaeologist goes out and looks at it, maybe brings a spade and a sieve, and sees if there's anything else that matches up. This is not dumb luck, unless you ascribe your ability to read these words also to "dumb luck."

Now, let's use Martha's Vineyard as an example. There's an example of supposed Norse stonework there, the Leif Ericsson Stone. The site has been in continuous occupation for near four hundred years, since Gosnold named it during the surveys leading up to Jamestown. During that time, how many locals have turned over supposed pre-Columbian European artifacts when they were planting gardens? When they were laying foundations? When they were building roads? I've spent long enough living in long-occupied (for the US) regions that I can tell you the odds of turning up artifacts if you already have a site to examine are pretty good, even if the artifacts aren't the ones you wanted.

Rev. Phil Gotsch
2/7/2014 02:07:00 am

The Norwegian guy didn't "discover" the site … He "DUG" it ...

An Over-Educated Grunt
2/7/2014 02:16:00 am

By your logic, then, nobody since the original crossing of the Bering Sea has discovered any place in the Americas, because there's already been someone there. Howard Carter didn't discover Tutankhamen's tomb, because the Valley of the Kings was already a working dig site. Stanley didn't discover the headwaters of the Nile, because there was already someone there.

Phil, pack it up and go home. Your arguments get weaker every time you post something, and when you do talk about substantive issues, which you claim to want, you come across as petulant. You prefer sophistry to argument. You don't bring facts to bear, or even reasonable argument on the meaning of the facts already presented, you instead choose to argue about whether the man who turned the spade discovered something.

Rev. Phil Gotsch
2/7/2014 02:30:32 am

The Norwegian guy was directed to a site that was already known and THEN he dug it and found it to be a Viking site ...

An Over-Educated Grunt
2/7/2014 02:33:56 am

Repetition. You're tailchasing. I'm done.

Rev. Phil Gotsch
2/7/2014 03:10:54 am

I give the Norwegian guy plenty of credit -- where it's due … He took The Sagas SERIOUSLY and studied-up on Viking voyages … So, yes, he knew that "Vinland" WASN'T going to be found in Florida or on Manhattan Island, but in the area where the site WAS found (NOT by the Norwegian guy, but long previously by locals) …

But did the Norwegian guy just sail up to the beach where he EXPECTED to find a Viking site … ??? No … That's my point …

Look, if there HADN'T been obvious signs of previous human habitation long noted by locals … but the site had been leveled by whatever means or forces and nobody had yet noticed that it was of any archeological interest … would the Norwegian guy have found it on his own … ??? I don't think so ...

An Over-Educated Grunt
2/7/2014 03:38:47 am

I had a lengthy reply written, but I've decided to cut it off.

You are defining "discovery" as you choose, rather than as anyone outside the head of Phil Gotsch would understand it. You appear to think that surveying multiple sites, then excavating the most likely, is "luck." None of that changes the fact that the very things that made L'Anse-aux-Meadows a believable site (position, correlation with known information from the Vinlandsaga, the mounds and their local reputation) are completely and totally absent from every other putative Norse site in the Americas. Instead you want to nitpick the meaning of specific words about the one site we know. Until you're willing to engage on the whole field and not turtle up on the subject of what "discover" means, I'm done.

Rev. Phil Gotsch
2/7/2014 04:51:34 am

Again, I give the Norwegian guy PLENTY of credit … but his "discovery" was hardly a SOLO enterprise of staggering genius … He did hard work, followed an evidence trail, and YES had some genuine LUCK also …

And again … The fact that no one has yet found any village sites comparable to L'Anse aux Meadows simply means that IF there are other sites they haven't been found yet … If someone finds them someday, GREAT … !!! If not, well, then … So what … ???

We KNOW that The Vikes did make their voyages and had some adventures as told in The Sagas ...

Harry
2/5/2014 01:10:38 am

I think it is appropriate at this point to mention that I have played in SW's court, as it were. So far, I have posted four questions on his website, and, to his credit, he has responded to all four (so I would not say that he ignores anything that does not support his position). I thought I would present one Q and A set, unedited, without further comment at this time, other than to say that I think that Scott's answer is ironic:

AnonymousJanuary 9, 2014 at 4:54 AM

Scott,

It is possible that, in the future, some runologist will be able to translate the Millwood Stone. However, until that occurs, you have to accept the fact that the only competent runologist to make that attempt was unable to make any sense of it. Therefore, there is, at present, no basis for concluding that the symbols on it are genuine runes.

I can think of two alternative possibilities worth considering: (1) that it is a clumsy (or at least unserious) attempt to replicate runes, presumably as some kind of hoax or (2) the symbols only look superficially like runes, but are actually nothing of the kind, in which case they may be American Indian pictographs. If possibility (2) is not plausible, then we are left with possibility (1), which implies that it is, indeed, almost certainly probable. In either case, I do not think you have any basis, so far, for saying anything other than "I don't know," yourself.

FYI, I am a different "Anonymous" than any of the ones who previously posted here.

Scott WolterJanuary 9, 2014 at 4:18 PM

I do have a basis to render an opinion as I've already stated. For example, the dotted Runes follow a pattern similar to what I've seen before. These characters look nothing like any Native carvings I have ever seen and clearly contain many know Scandinavian and Anglo-Saxon type runes.

It could be an unserious attempt at an inscription, but I doubt it. There are other things I've noticed, but in the interest of not revealing what might be in a future episode, I'm going to hold off on that.

I'm more than happy to say I don't know when that is the case. However, in this case I feel I have enough evidence to say the Millwood inscription is more likely old then not old. The difficulty is many medieval inscriptions were secret messages meant to be read by only those who understood the unique characters. That appears to be the case here. I know of no runologists in history who understood this point. They all tried to make unusual inscriptions like this "fit" into their box of knowledge instead of letting the inscriptions tell them what it was. That is the essence of Scientific Method.

Reply
RLewis
2/5/2014 02:57:38 am

This is essentially my experience also (he answered a few of my questions). I received the same (in my opinion) vague, nonsensical responses (e.g. "letting the inscriptions tell them what it was"). Basically, he feels experts should say "I don't know" instead of giving their expert opinion that it's fake or maybe some secret code.

Reply
The Other J.
2/5/2014 07:56:01 am

One of the problems with Wolter's response is first he says "These characters look nothing like any Native carvings I have ever seen," and then goes on to claim what he's doing is following the essence of the Scientific Method.

But just because he's never seen any Native carvings with dots doesn't mean they don't exist, and the scientific method would require that he exhausts possibilities beyond what he already knows before he starts jumping to conclusions. An Over-Educated Grunt laid out the process nicely above.

Besides, do we really know the date of origin of the Millwood rune stone? Because by most accounts it's a relatively recent fake, and if that's the case then there are at least two Native American scripts using dots that were in use by the 19th century, Mi'kmaq and Ojibwe. It's conceivable that someone who wanted to make a hybrid Norse/Native American fake just looked up the futhark and a one of the available Native American scripts and created the runes out of those.

Reply
The Other J.
2/5/2014 08:13:31 am

Also -- just submitted my first question to Wolter's blog. It was in response to someone else who asked why he didn't do a sonar survey of the lake, and he waved that off by saying they didn't have time. So I asked why he didn't use Scherz's 1990's sonar survey of Rock Lake to look for the pyramids (or at least show if they were or weren't where people thought they would be in the lake).

I also made the point that since he's been acquainted with Scherz since the 2009 'Holy Grail in America' show, there's really no excuse not to have consulted him and his previous sonar survey, especially if they were short on time. Besides, Scherz appeared on the very next episode, so it's not like he wasn't in contact with him.

We'll see if he responds. I wasn't rude, but I was pretty direct. Don't know if it'll make it past the doorman.

Reply
WhiteFeather
2/6/2014 06:51:58 am

235 comments on this thread, to date.
45 postings are by Phil Gotsch.
58 other postings are direct replies to, or are otherwise about, Phil Gotsch.
Houston, we have a problem...

Reply
Rev. Phil Gotsch
2/6/2014 10:23:18 am

Yes …
Let's NOT discuss PERSONS … but instead address ideas, facts, and claims ...

Reply
WhiteFeather
2/7/2014 10:02:27 am

Spare me the condescending admonition, and go fall in a lake. You don't set the agenda here; I will post whatever I wish to, unless Jason finds it objectionable. Your opinion doesn't matter to me.
The point of the stats I mentioned is you post too much, too frequently. It is PATHOLOGIC.
The parents taught me to stand up, speak up, then shut up, and sit down.
Apparently you've never learned the parts about shutting up and sitting down.

Are you paid by either H2 or Scott Wolter to provide the online reputation management that you so "relentlessly" do here?

Rev. Phil Gotsch
2/7/2014 10:47:59 am

WhiteFeather (whoever you are) --

Well … I dunno …
You don't "get" the difference between calm open discussion of ideas, facts and claims … and personal attacks … Okay ...

That's YOUR problem … what ever ...

kevin
2/6/2014 11:45:59 am

Sorry to digress. But I thank Mandalore and Overeducated Grunt for taking time to answer my thoughts. Unfortunately, I just got off the phone with David Childress and he said both of you have no idea what the hell you're talking about.....joke. Thanks again guys.

Reply
An Over-Educated Grunt
2/7/2014 02:04:20 am

No problem - I'll take any chance to be a lecturey know-it-all!

Reply
Tara Jordan link
2/6/2014 01:18:17 pm

Scott.
On the Rita Louise Radio Show,you publicly challenged " any scientist or academic" (those you accuse of "misusing proper scientific method") to debate with you.Let`s do it.You are the "authority" on Knights Templar & medieval history,I`m not even an "academic"yet,merely a PHD student.Easy job for you since you pretend to be an "accomplished & professional hard working scientist".I want to oppose your "methodology"(& your groundbreaking discoveries) to what I consider standard academic research protocols.
I`m not an expert on medieval history but I personally went through 1000`s of original/historical archives and documents (en vieux Francais dans le texte) related to the Knights Templar & Jacques de Molay (research assistant work for a PHD thesis on Jacques de Molay).I am issuing you a direct challenge:Show me one single historical document that mentions,records or refers to a "Knights Templar transatlantic journey",to what is known today as North America. Why I say "historical documents or archives",I am explicitly referring to non pseudo historical fabrications & postulations.
Another question,Scott.since you are obviously not fluent in French & ancient French language (vieux Francais) how can you claim authority over the topic of Knights Templar,for which you have to rely on translations?.
Tara Jordan.

(Your comment will be visible after approval.)

Reply
B L
2/10/2014 08:06:07 am

I read your post on Wolter's blog, and I applaud your efforts. He's a pretty savy guy in these matters. He basically told you in a polite way to come back after you've read his books. In essence he's completely reframed your argument to one he can't lose. Instead of a debating the facts he has turned the conversation into a debate on the contents of his books. If you indulge him and spend money on his books then ultimately he has won regardless of the outcome of the debate.

Treating these people as anything more than the carnival midway barkers that they truly are is an injustice to anyone trying to do real work.

Reply
jiiikoo
2/8/2014 12:46:10 am

In my opinion Scott Wolters isn't a credible scientist, atleast not in the show America Unearthed. Most of his claims lack the proof that they desperately need and as a archeology student I find myself screaming at the TV from time to time while watching his show, but at the same time, he is entitled to his opinions whether they are true or not. It is his show and he can twist and turn every word the way he wants to twist them, that's his right. But what I hate the most, are the people who buy into his theories. That's the root of the problem, but thats not a problem caused by Scott Wolters alone, but the fault lies also with the people who take his claims at face value. We should be trying to make them understand that even though Scott isn't going with the flow doesn't make his claims true, or that presenting inaccurate data as accurate is okay. Thats why I enjoy reading Jasons blog as he tries to educate the one's who are willing to be educated.

And as the topic was Jason going into personal attacks against Scott Wolters, I have to admit that I haven't stumbled upon such things. I haven't read everything concerning Scott on here, but from the limited sample I've read, that's not the case. I've seen alot of comments on here that could be interpreted as such, but Jason can't be held responsible for other people's views.

And I'm sure someone might consider my response to be an insult towards Scott, but it isn't. Atleast i'm not writing it with bad intentions. I merely just think that I dont hold him as a credible source on the topics he discusses. When we are dealing with scientific matters, the slightest mistake in a theory or finding has huge implications on the whole study, thats why we have peer reviewing so such mistakes don't happen. In that regard, I hold Jason as a peer-reviewer for Scott's ideas and he has done a good job at that.

Reply
Alien Master
2/8/2014 01:35:12 pm

Why is almost everything on this site about Scott Wolter? Wolters show, Wolters credentials, Wolters blogs even new blogs just about stupid Wolter "updates." If this is about debunking claims about history and archeology there's millions of them out there.

Talk about something else for once! There are so many other people, claims or even shows to talk about! Ron Wyatt, Ashlie Cowie....Michael Jackson!

Reply
Phillip K.
2/8/2014 01:51:17 pm

I have to agree. I don't come to this site nearly as much as I used to. I held Jason in a high regard for his work and ability but I really must admit, it seems he's become obsessed with Scott Wolter anymore. I also agree with some of the posters above, it's really just become a "pissing" match anymore...

Reply
Jason Colavito link
2/8/2014 02:16:23 pm

I review Ancient Aliens each week, and this week I talked about H. P. Lovecraft. Last week was Graham Hancock... What do you want? Are you asking me to ignore the highest-rated show in the field even though it's the one everyone else is talking about?

Phillip K.
2/8/2014 07:00:35 pm

Graham Hancock...haha! Sorry, I can't help but laugh when I think about him. But to answer your question, Yes! Well, not ignore it but you never seemed to be the type to have to continually and relentlessly keep beating everybody's head with it.
But Graham Hancock is a step into something new. What about Graham Phillips?? Or Bob Cornuke??

I understand you need to focus on it because it draws attention to your site and your books and I don't mean that in a negative way. Of course you would. I guess we're just asking to stretch a little from Wolter. It may not be the highest rated or the most talked about but there are other topics people are talking about.

Jason Colavito link
2/8/2014 10:38:09 pm

5 out of every 7 blog posts most weeks, and 6 a majority of the time are on other topics besides Scott Wolter. It's not my fault if you choose not to read them. I've been covering Graham Hancock since 2001, so it's not "new." In fact, I've been doing this blog since 2011, before America Unearthed ever aired.

But I'm not a machine: I have a full time job, and I can't watch or read every last thing that has ever been produced. I just don't have that kind of time, so I aim for the biggest, highest-rated, and most popular ideas. I discussed Graham Phillips briefly in conjunction with Andrew Collins back in 2012.

The Black Hole
2/9/2014 09:33:36 am

Colavito needs to talk about the popular shows otherwise nobody would care about anything he posts and he wouldn't be able to promote himself and sell his books! DUH!

Brian
2/8/2014 07:12:08 pm

What about that Petter Amundsen guy? I saw parts of his movie about Oak Island that caused that controversy in Norway and man, that guys theory sounds like something that Dan Brown would write about!
And then I found out he was just featured on that new show about the Oak Island mystery on H2!

Reply
Only Human
2/8/2014 07:20:06 pm

AM, your talking about Legend Quest. Ashley Cowie claims to be a Freemason and has located the final resting place of the spear of destiny at Area 51, the staff of moses in the tomb of Aaron at Petra and the ark of the covenant in chartes cathedral in France. It was apparently a highly rated show and his theories and investigatory ability was a lot like what we see on AU.

Reply
Only Human
2/8/2014 07:21:28 pm

....Ron Wyatt....come on....sheesh....

Reply
Mark
2/25/2014 06:02:54 pm

OK, so I love the new angles on true history. I like wolter, until he made a comment about 9/11 and how he was hired to examine the site. So heartfelt he was, knowing what he knows, he covered the truth up. He is a shill. He was on the scene and wont even touch the facts about it. No one is true anymore, all paid off.

Reply

Your comment will be posted after it is approved.


Leave a Reply.

    Blog
    Picture

    Author

    I 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.

    Become a Patron!
    Tweets by JasonColavito
    Picture

    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.

    powered by TinyLetter

    Blog Roll

    Ancient Aliens Debunked
    Picture
    A Hot Cup of Joe
    ArchyFantasies
    Bad UFOs
    Mammoth Tales
    Matthew R. X. Dentith
    PaleoBabble
    Picture

    Categories

    All
    Alternative Archaeology
    Alternative Archaeology
    Alternative History
    Alternative History
    America Unearthed
    Ancient Aliens
    Ancient Astronauts
    Ancient History
    Ancient Texts
    Ancient Texts
    Archaeology
    Atlantis
    Conspiracies
    Giants
    Habsburgs
    Horror
    King Arthur
    Knights Templar
    Lovecraft
    Mythology
    Occult
    Popular Culture
    Popular Culture
    Projects
    Pyramids
    Racism
    Science
    Skepticism
    Ufos
    Weird Old Art
    Weird Things
    White Nationalism

    Terms & Conditions

    Please 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

    March 2023
    February 2023
    January 2023
    December 2022
    November 2022
    October 2022
    September 2022
    August 2022
    July 2022
    June 2022
    May 2022
    April 2022
    March 2022
    February 2022
    January 2022
    December 2021
    November 2021
    October 2021
    September 2021
    August 2021
    July 2021
    June 2021
    May 2021
    April 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    October 2020
    September 2020
    August 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    January 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    June 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    February 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    February 2014
    January 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013
    August 2013
    July 2013
    June 2013
    May 2013
    April 2013
    March 2013
    February 2013
    January 2013
    December 2012
    November 2012
    October 2012
    September 2012
    August 2012
    July 2012
    June 2012
    May 2012
    April 2012
    March 2012
    February 2012
    January 2012
    December 2011
    November 2011
    October 2011
    September 2011
    August 2011
    July 2011
    June 2011
    May 2011
    April 2011
    March 2011
    February 2011
    January 2011
    December 2010
    November 2010
    October 2010
    September 2010
    August 2010
    July 2010
    June 2010
    May 2010
    April 2010
    March 2010
    February 2010

    RSS Feed

Picture
Home  |  Blog  |  Books  | Contact  |  About Jason | Terms & Conditions
© 2010-2023 Jason Colavito. All rights reserved.

  • Home
  • Blog
  • Books
    • Legends of the Pyramids
    • The Mound Builder Myth
    • Jason and the Argonauts
    • Cult of Alien Gods >
      • Contents
      • Excerpt
      • Image Gallery
    • Foundations of Atlantis
    • Knowing Fear >
      • Contents
      • Excerpt
      • Image Gallery
    • Hideous Bit of Morbidity >
      • Contents
      • Excerpt
      • Image Gallery
    • Cthulhu in World Mythology >
      • Excerpt
      • Image Gallery
      • Necronomicon Fragments
      • Oral Histories
    • Fiction >
      • Short Stories
      • Free Fiction
    • JasonColavito.com Books >
      • Faking History
      • Unearthing the Truth
      • Critical Companion to Ancient Aliens
      • Studies in Ancient Astronautics (Series) >
        • Theosophy on Ancient Astronauts
        • Pyramidiots!
        • Edison's Conquest of Mars
      • Fiction Anthologies >
        • Unseen Horror >
          • Contents
          • Excerpt
        • Moon Men! >
          • Contents
      • The Orphic Argonautica >
        • Contents
        • Excerpt
      • The Faust Book >
        • Contents
        • Excerpt
      • Classic Reprints
      • eBook Minis
    • Free eBooks >
      • Origin of the Space Gods
      • Ancient Atom Bombs
      • Golden Fleeced
      • Ancient America
      • Horror & Science
  • Articles
    • Skeptical Xenoarchaeologist Newsletter >
      • Volumes 1-10 Archive >
        • Volume 1 Archive
        • Volume 2 Archive
        • Volume 3 Archive
        • Volume 4 Archive
        • Volume 5 Archive
        • Volume 6 Archive
        • Volume 7 Archive
        • Volume 8 Archive
        • Volume 9 Archive
        • Volume 10 Archive
      • Volumes 11-20 Archive >
        • Volume 11 Archive
        • Volume 12 Archive
        • Volume 13 Archive
        • Volume 14 Archive
        • Volume 15 Archive
        • Volume 16 Archive
        • Volume 17 Archive
        • Volume 18 Archive
        • Volume 19 Archive
        • Volume 20 Archive
      • Volumes 21-30 Archive >
        • Volume 21 Archive
        • Volume 22 Archive
    • Television Reviews >
      • Ancient Aliens Reviews
      • In Search of Aliens Reviews
      • America Unearthed
      • Pirate Treasure of the Knights Templar
      • Search for the Lost Giants
      • Forbidden History Reviews
      • Expedition Unknown Reviews
      • Legends of the Lost
      • Unexplained + Unexplored
      • Rob Riggle: Global Investigator
    • Book Reviews
    • Galleries >
      • Bad Archaeology
      • Ancient Civilizations >
        • Ancient Egypt
        • Ancient Greece
        • Ancient Near East
        • Ancient Americas
      • Supernatural History
      • Book Image Galleries
    • Videos
    • Collection: Ancient Alien Fraud >
      • Chariots of the Gods at 50
      • Secret History of Ancient Astronauts
      • Of Atlantis and Aliens
      • Aliens and Ancient Texts
      • Profiles in Ancient Astronautics >
        • Erich von Däniken
        • Robert Temple
        • Giorgio Tsoukalos
        • David Childress
      • Blunders in the Sky
      • The Case of the False Quotes
      • Alternative Authors' Quote Fraud
      • David Childress & the Aliens
      • Faking Ancient Art in Uzbekistan
      • Intimations of Persecution
      • Zecharia Sitchin's World
      • Jesus' Alien Ancestors?
      • Extraterrestrial Evolution?
    • Collection: Skeptic Magazine >
      • America Before Review
      • Native American Discovery of Europe
      • Interview: Scott Sigler
      • Golden Fleeced
      • Oh the Horror
      • Discovery of America
      • Supernatural Television
      • Review of Civilization One
      • Who Lost the Middle Ages
      • Charioteer of the Gods
    • Collection: Ancient History >
      • Prehistoric Nuclear War
      • The China Syndrome
      • Atlantis, Mu, and the Maya
      • Easter Island Exposed
      • Who Built the Sphinx?
      • Who Built the Great Pyramid?
      • Archaeological Cover Up?
    • Collection: The Lovecraft Legacy >
      • Pauwels, Bergier, and Lovecraft
      • Lovecraft in Bergier
      • Lovecraft and Scientology
    • Collection: UFOs >
      • Alien Abduction at the Outer Limits
      • Aliens and Anal Probes
      • Ultra-Terrestrials and UFOs
      • Rebels, Queers, and Aliens
    • Scholomance: The Devil's School
    • Prehistory of Chupacabra
    • The Templars, the Holy Grail, & Henry Sinclair
    • Magicians of the Gods Review
    • The Curse of the Pharaohs
    • The Antediluvian Pyramid Myth
    • Whitewashing American Prehistory
    • James Dean's Cursed Porsche
  • The Library
    • Ancient Mysteries >
      • Ancient Texts >
        • Mesopotamian Texts >
          • Atrahasis Epic
          • Epic of Gilgamesh
          • Kutha Creation Legend
          • Babylonian Creation Myth
          • Descent of Ishtar
          • Berossus
          • Comparison of Antediluvian Histories
        • Egyptian Texts >
          • The Shipwrecked Sailor
          • Dream Stela of Thutmose IV
          • The Papyrus of Ani
          • Classical Accounts of the Pyramids
          • Inventory Stela
          • Manetho
          • Eratosthenes' King List
          • The Story of Setna
          • Leon of Pella
          • Diodorus on Egyptian History
          • On Isis and Osiris
          • Famine Stela
          • Old Egyptian Chronicle
          • The Book of Sothis
          • Horapollo
          • Al-Maqrizi's King List
        • Teshub and the Dragon
        • Hermetica >
          • The Three Hermeses
          • Kore Kosmou
          • Corpus Hermeticum
          • The Asclepius
          • The Emerald Tablet
          • Hermetic Fragments
          • Prologue to the Kyranides
          • The Secret of Creation
          • Ancient Alphabets Explained
          • Prologue to Ibn Umayl's Silvery Water
          • Book of the 24 Philosophers
          • Aurora of the Philosophers
        • Hesiod's Theogony
        • Periplus of Hanno
        • Ctesias' Indica
        • Sanchuniathon
        • Sima Qian
        • Syncellus's Enoch Fragments
        • The Book of Enoch
        • Slavonic Enoch
        • Sepher Yetzirah
        • Tacitus' Germania
        • De Dea Syria
        • Aelian's Various Histories
        • Julius Africanus' Chronography
        • Eusebius' Chronicle
        • Chinese Accounts of Rome
        • Ancient Chinese Automaton
        • The Orphic Argonautica
        • Fragments of Panodorus
        • Annianus on the Watchers
        • The Watchers and Antediluvian Wisdom
      • Medieval Texts >
        • Medieval Legends of Ancient Egypt >
          • Medieval Pyramid Lore
          • John Malalas on Ancient Egypt
          • Fragments of Abenephius
          • Akhbar al-zaman
          • Ibrahim ibn Wasif Shah
          • Murtada ibn al-‘Afif
          • Al-Maqrizi on the Pyramids
          • Al-Suyuti on the Pyramids
        • The Hunt for Noah's Ark
        • Isidore of Seville
        • Book of Liang: Fusang
        • Agobard on Magonia
        • Book of Thousands
        • Voyage of Saint Brendan
        • Power of Art and of Nature
        • Travels of Sir John Mandeville
        • Yazidi Revelation and Black Book
        • Al-Biruni on the Great Flood
        • Voyage of the Zeno Brothers
        • The Kensington Runestone (Hoax)
        • Islamic Discovery of America
        • The Aztec Creation Myth
      • Lost Civilizations >
        • Atlantis >
          • Plato's Atlantis Dialogues >
            • Timaeus
            • Critias
          • Fragments on Atlantis
          • Panchaea: The Other Atlantis
          • Eumalos on Atlantis (Hoax)
          • Gómara on Atlantis
          • Sardinia and Atlantis
          • Santorini and Atlantis
          • The Mound Builders and Atlantis
          • Donnelly's Atlantis
          • Atlantis in Morocco
          • Atlantis and the Sea Peoples
          • W. Scott-Elliot >
            • The Story of Atlantis
            • The Lost Lemuria
          • The Lost Atlantis
          • Atlantis in Africa
          • How I Found Atlantis (Hoax)
          • Termier on Atlantis
          • The Critias and Minoan Crete
          • Rebuttal to Termier
          • Further Responses to Termier
          • Flinders Petrie on Atlantis
        • Lost Cities >
          • Miscellaneous Lost Cities
          • The Seven Cities
          • The Lost City of Paititi
          • Manuscript 512
          • The Idolatrous City of Iximaya (Hoax)
          • The 1885 Moberly Lost City Hoax
          • The Elephants of Paredon (Hoax)
        • OOPARTs
        • Oronteus Finaeus Antarctica Map
        • Caucasians in Panama
        • Jefferson's Excavation
        • Fictitious Discoveries in America
        • Against Diffusionism
        • Tunnels Under Peru
        • The Parahyba Inscription (Hoax)
        • Mound Builders
        • Gunung Padang
        • Tales of Enchanted Islands
        • The 1907 Ancient World Map Hoax
        • The 1909 Grand Canyon Hoax
        • The Interglacial Period
        • Solving Oak Island
      • Religious Conspiracies >
        • Pantera, Father of Jesus?
        • Toledot Yeshu
        • Peter of les Vaux-de-Cernay on Cathars
        • Testimony of Jean de Châlons
        • Rosslyn Chapel and the 'Prentice's Pillar
        • The Many Wives of Jesus
        • Templar Infiltration of Labor
        • Louis Martin & the Holy Bloodline
        • The Life of St. Issa (Hoax)
        • On the Person of Jesus Christ
      • Giants in the Earth >
        • Fossil Origins of Myths >
          • Fossil Teeth and Bones of Elephants
          • Fossil Elephants
          • Fossil Bones of Teutobochus
          • Fossil Mammoths and Giants
          • Giants' Bones Dug Out of the Earth
          • Fossils and the Supernatural
          • Fossils, Myth, and Pseudo-History
          • Man During the Stone Age
          • Fossil Bones and Giants
          • American Elephant Myths
          • The Mammoth and the Flood
          • Fossils and Myth
          • Fossil Origin of the Cyclops
          • Mastodon, Mammoth, and Man
        • Fragments on Giants
        • Manichaean Book of Giants
        • Geoffrey on British Giants
        • Alfonso X's Hermetic History of Giants
        • Boccaccio and the Fossil 'Giant'
        • Book of Howth
        • Purchas His Pilgrimage
        • Edmond Temple's 1827 Giant Investigation
        • The Giants of Sardinia
        • Giants and the Sons of God
        • The Magnetism of Evil
        • Tertiary Giants
        • Smithsonian Giant Reports
        • Early American Giants
        • The Giant of Coahuila
        • Jewish Encyclopedia on Giants
        • Index of Giants
        • Newspaper Accounts of Giants
        • Lanier's A Book of Giants
      • Science and History >
        • Halley on Noah's Comet
        • The Newport Tower
        • Iron: The Stone from Heaven
        • Ararat and the Ark
        • Pyramid Facts and Fancies
        • Argonauts before Homer
        • The Deluge
        • Crown Prince Rudolf on the Pyramids
        • Old Mythology in New Apparel
        • Blavatsky on Dinosaurs
        • Teddy Roosevelt on Bigfoot
        • Devil Worship in France
        • Maspero's Review of Akhbar al-zaman
        • The Holy Grail as Lucifer's Crown Jewel
        • The Mutinous Sea
        • The Rock Wall of Rockwall
        • Fabulous Zoology
        • The Origins of Talos
        • Mexican Mythology
        • Chinese Pyramids
        • Maqrizi's Names of the Pharaohs
      • Extreme History >
        • Roman Empire Hoax
        • American Antiquities
        • American Cataclysms
        • England, the Remnant of Judah
        • Historical Chronology of the Mexicans
        • Maspero on the Predynastic Sphinx
        • Vestiges of the Mayas
        • Ragnarok: The Age of Fire and Gravel
        • Origins of the Egyptian People
        • The Secret Doctrine >
          • Volume 1: Cosmogenesis
          • Volume 2: Anthropogenesis
        • Phoenicians in America
        • The Electric Ark
        • Traces of European Influence
        • Prince Henry Sinclair
        • Pyramid Prophecies
        • Templars of Ancient Mexico
        • Chronology and the "Riddle of the Sphinx"
        • The Faith of Ancient Egypt
        • Spirit of the Hour in Archaeology
        • Book of the Damned
        • Great Pyramid As Noah's Ark
        • Richard Shaver's Proofs
    • Alien Encounters >
      • US Government Ancient Astronaut Files >
        • Fortean Society and Columbus
        • Inquiry into Shaver and Palmer
        • The Skyfort Document
        • Whirling Wheels
        • Denver Ancient Astronaut Lecture
        • Soviet Search for Lemuria
        • Visitors from Outer Space
        • Unidentified Flying Objects (Abstract)
        • "Flying Saucers"? They're a Myth
        • UFO Hypothesis Survival Questions
        • Air Force Academy UFO Textbook
        • The Condon Report on Ancient Astronauts
        • Atlantis Discovery Telegrams
        • Ancient Astronaut Society Telegram
        • Noah's Ark Cables
        • The Von Daniken Letter
        • CIA Psychic Probe of Ancient Mars
        • Scott Wolter Lawsuit
        • UFOs in Ancient China
        • CIA Report on Noah's Ark
        • CIA Noah's Ark Memos
        • Congressional Ancient Aliens Testimony
        • Ancient Astronaut and Nibiru Email
        • Congressional Ancient Mars Hearing
        • House UFO Hearing
      • Ancient Extraterrestrials >
        • Premodern UFO Sightings
        • The Moon Hoax
        • Inhabitants of Other Planets
        • Blavatsky on Ancient Astronauts
        • The Stanzas of Dzyan (Hoax)
        • Aerolites and Religion
        • What Is Theosophy?
        • Plane of Ether
        • The Adepts from Venus
      • A Message from Mars
      • Saucer Mystery Solved?
      • Orville Wright on UFOs
      • Interdimensional Flying Saucers
      • Flying Saucers Are Real
      • Report on UFOs
    • The Supernatural >
      • The Devils of Loudun
      • Sublime and Beautiful
      • Voltaire on Vampires
      • Demonology and Witchcraft
      • Thaumaturgia
      • Bulgarian Vampires
      • Religion and Evolution
      • Transylvanian Superstitions
      • Defining a Zombie
      • Dread of the Supernatural
      • Vampires
      • Werewolves and Vampires and Ghouls
      • Science and Fairy Stories
      • The Cursed Car
    • Classic Fiction >
      • Lucian's True History
      • Some Words with a Mummy
      • The Coming Race
      • King Solomon's Mines
      • An Inhabitant of Carcosa
      • The Xipéhuz
      • Lot No. 249
      • The Novel of the Black Seal
      • The Island of Doctor Moreau
      • Pharaoh's Curse
      • Edison's Conquest of Mars
      • The Lost Continent
      • Count Magnus
      • The Mysterious Stranger
      • The Wendigo
      • Sredni Vashtar
      • The Lost World
      • The Red One
      • H. P. Lovecraft >
        • Dagon
        • The Call of Cthulhu
        • History of the Necronomicon
        • At the Mountains of Madness
        • Lovecraft's Library in 1932
      • The Skeptical Poltergeist
      • The Corpse on the Grating
      • The Second Satellite
      • Queen of the Black Coast
      • A Martian Odyssey
    • Classic Genre Movies
    • Miscellaneous Documents >
      • The Balloon-Hoax
      • A Problem in Greek Ethics
      • The Migration of Symbols
      • The Gospel of Intensity
      • De Profundis
      • The Life and Death of Crown Prince Rudolf
      • The Bathtub Hoax
      • Crown Prince Rudolf's Letters
      • Position of Viking Women
      • Employment of Homosexuals
      • James Dean's Scrapbook
      • James Dean's Love Letters
      • The Amazing James Dean Hoax!
    • Free Classic Pseudohistory eBooks
  • About Jason
    • Biography
    • Jason in the Media
    • Contact Jason
    • About JasonColavito.com
    • Terms and Conditions
  • Search