Thursday, February 6, 2014

The Smithsonian Responds to America Unearthed - "Lost Relics of the Bible" Episode

Something truly ironic happened the same week the Bat Creek Stone (Lost Relics of the Bible) episode aired; the artifact was returned to the Eastern Band of Cherokee where it will be displayed as a Woodland Era artifact in the Museum of the Cherokee Indian in Cherokee, North Carolina.  This exciting and historic news was tempered by a curiously timed statement issued by Dr. Bruce Smith, of the Smithsonian Institution on Thursday, January 29th.  I wasn’t the only person to find this to be very interesting timing for the Smithsonian to issue such a proclamation:

“Bruce D. Smith, Curator of North American Archaeology at the National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, shares the opinion of other professional archaeologists that the Bat Creek Stone is an obvious fraud, as most recently documented in the article by Robert Mainfort and Mary Kwas ‘The Bat Creek Stone Revisited: A Fraud Exposed’, American Antiquity 2004. Along with other known fraudulent artifacts, we retain it in our collections as part of the cultural history of archaeological frauds, which were quite popular in the second half of the 19th century.

Long known to be a fake, The Bat Creek Stone has none the less been a source of entertaining and fanciful alternative interpretations for more than a century, and as is the case with mermaids and unicorns, it will no doubt continue to be the subject of speculation by people of all ages for years to come.”

I then issued a response:

"This statement borders on ridiculous.  For the Smithsonian to issue a statement like this indicates one of two possibilities:

  1. Mr. Smith and his colleagues do not understand the scientific testing of the artifacts to date that are consistent with a circa 1500 year-old date.
  2. Mr. Smith and his colleagues are willfully ignoring scientific data and siding with unsupported speculation to continue to preserve an historical paradigm of the Smithsonian Institution’s choosing.

I don’t believe Mr. Smith doesn’t understand the scientific data which is consistent and conclusive with authenticity.  Therefore, to accept unsupported speculation of Mainfort and Kwas and thereby disparaging the reputation of John Emmert, and by association casting doubt on all of the Smithsonian’s excavations and findings of this era, reeks of an agenda.

The seriousness of this situation, in my opinion, demands a Congressional investigation since the Smithsonian receives government funding.  The tax-payers of this country, and indeed the world, deserve better given the Smithsonian’s perceived reputation of competency.  In light of the extensive scientific evidence that appears to be being ignored in favor of an apparent agenda, this statement by Mr. Smith on behalf of the institution casts doubt on that competency.

I plan to do all I can to see this investigation happens.”

Dr. Smith then responded making sure to list all his credentials while trying to belittle my own qualifications:

“This about the response I expected from Scott Wolter - should make for good publicity for Wolter and the exhibition.

I am looking forward to reading of Mr. Wolter's "scientific data" once it is published in a peer reviewed scientific journal.  I Hadn't heard of Mr. Wolter previously, but a brief scan of internet entries provides a clear profile of his qualifications and his reputation as a researcher (An undergraduate degree in Geology, it appears).

I am looking forward to hearing from Duane King and Anne Rodgers on this.


Dr. Bruce D. Smith
Past President, Southeastern Archaeological Conference
Past President, Society for American Archaeology
Member, American Academy of Arts and Sciences
Member, National Academy of Sciences, U.S.A.

Bruce D. Smith
Curator of North American Archaeology
Senior Research Scientist
Program in Human Ecology and Archaeobiology
Department of Anthropology
National Museum of Natural History
Smithsonian Institution
Washington D.C. 20560

Don Rose, a senior elder with the Cherokee was not pleased and made his feelings known that he considered the Smithsonian’s statement to be an insult and if they insist in calling it a hoax, then the elders will rebury it:


It is my understanding that the Smithsonian has, in a recent correspondence, declared the Bat Creek Stone to be a fraudulent artifact and not worthy of further historical or scientific interest or investigation.  That position is entirely inconsistent with the criteria the Smithsonian has imposed on us to protect the artifact; if it is a fake, then why be concerned with its welfare.  However, since they have formally declared it to be a fraud, then I, as a tribal member and a member of the Museum Board, must oppose further effort to acquire an expensive display arena for an item that has been determined to be fraudulent.  I respectfully suggest the relic be placed in storage or returned to the Smithsonian; or, if it is a fact that it was recovered from a Cherokee Mound, then the Tribe reclaims the worthless stone and return it to a burial site, as is our custom.

Donald E. Rose
Treasurer, Museum Board”

I wasn’t pleased either and made my feelings known as well:

"Dr. Smith,

With all due respect, I would have expected a more creative response than the old fall-back lines of academia such as personal attacks by criticizing credentials and reverting to the tired old phrase of, "Published in a peer reviewed scientific journal."  If you are going to use the word "scientific", you better know what it means.  The fact of the matter is we come from two different worlds.  I am a licensed professional whose primary responsibility is the health and safety of the public.  We are responsible for building and maintaining our country's buildings, roads, bridges and other critical infrastructure.  When those structures fail, that is when they call me.

I certainly consider myself a researcher, but my primary work is material forensics.  The standard I have to meet is to be able to testify in a court of law, under oath, to my scientific findings which must be supported by factual evidence.  If I were to be found guilty of substandard work, or unethical behavior, I risk losing my license to practice and potentially could go to jail.  I would ask you Dr. Smith, what accountability does a tenured professor have?

The fact is this lowly undergrad was formally trained in the scientific method and has used it in my work for nearly 30 years now.  I can easily see when it has not been used properly.  The Smithsonian's handling of the Bat Creek Stone, the Kensington Rune Stone, the Tucson Lead Artifacts, and other historical artifacts are textbook examples of the improper use of the scientific method.

My geological work on the Bat Creek Stone was professionally peer-reviewed in accordance with ASTM and AASHTO standards.  It is those scientific standards that the building of our nation in the modern age was based upon.  You can criticize me all you want, but it'll be interesting to see how the academic, opinion-driven peer-review process holds up during questioning, under oath, against factual scientific evidence."

I later added the following to the discussion:

Don (Rose),

“You, me, the Tribe and the Smithsonian (including Dr. Smith) know the artifact is genuine.  Academia in Washington is defending a centuries old paradigm and we all know it.  They know that, once one of these obvious genuine "anomalies" is accepted, the historical house of cards crumbles.

They know as we do, trying to scapegoat Emmert is unfounded and unethical, but it's all they've got.

As I said Friday, we need to wipe away the past 100 years and encourage the scientists do the work with fresh, objective eyes.

I'm confident the facts will lead to the truth.”

I stand by my comments and also wonder, if the Bat Creek Stone were such an obvious fake, why do they care so much about the artifact?  Why did they bother for years to prominently display the artifact in the McClung Museum at the University of Tennessee, in Knoxville.  And why did they make the Cherokee wait so long (almost three years), and fill out mounds of paperwork for a fake?  The reason is because they know it’s not a hoax and is really an important historical artifact they lost control of thinking it was a Cherokee inscription back in 1889.  This begs the question: Does anybody think it would have ever seen the light of day had the Smithsonian realized it was a Hebrew inscription back then?

This also begs another question for the skeptics who accused the discoverer, John W. Emmert, of planting a hoax to impress his bosses: If he was the one who carved it to allegedly impress his boss, why didn’t he point out that it was Hebrew? It wasn't realized that it was Hebrew for another 80 years. Emmert had no idea it was Hebrew!

The accusations don’t follow simple logic, have no basis in fact, and are clearly unethical since Emmert can’t defend himself since he is long dead.  The accusations bring up another troubling fact for the Smithsonian.  Since they have plainly questioned the integrity of Emmert in this dig; doesn’t it throw doubt on all the other digs he did for the institution?  Apparently, the Smithsonian believes it can pick and choose who and what is credible based on what is found.  On February 6th, Dr. Hu McCulloch asked Dr. Smith for clarification on this very point:

 Dear Dr. Smith,
   Thank you for clarifying the Smithsonian’s official opinion on the Bat Creek stone.
   Does this mean that the Smithsonian now officially renounces the entire Mound Survey as unreliable, or just the substantial portion that was due to John Emmert?  In the latter case, would it be possible to make public a list of the sections and artifacts that he was responsible for and which may now be disregarded?  For the most part, the field agents responsible for the various sections were not identified by name in the Mound Survey report.
   You mention the 2004 Mainfort and Kwas article as reflecting your position.   You may be interested in my reply to that article, which is forthcoming (very shortly) in Pre-Columbiana.  A preprint is online at .
   Sincerely yours,
Hu McCulloch

While the Smithsonian has long basked in the glory and respect of being one of the world’s finest museums, their handling of the Bat Creek Stone transfer to the Cherokee over this past week was disrespectful to the tribe and created a large crack to form through its integrity.  That crack can be fixed with the appropriate action moving forward.  Otherwise, other cracks are sure to be found that could lead to serious structural damage.

Phil and Leslie Kalen outside the cave.

Phil and Leslie Kalen work with the Committee Films crew inside the illuminated cave.

Colin Thrienen works in a precarious spot inside the beautiful limestone cave.

Scott and Jim Morgan initiate three worthy guests onto their squad in the hotel lobby.


  1. I'm curious, which AASHTO specifications were used for the dating of the Bat Creek Stone?

  2. The reference to AASHTO specifications was meant to demonstrate that in the professional world I work in we strictly adhere to industry regulations and procedures. Obviously, we did not use those specs during our analysis of the Bat Creek Stone.

    Nice try though!

    1. That's an interesting interpretation of "My geological work on the Bat Creek Stone was professionally peer-reviewed in accordance with ASTM and AASHTO standards."

      If it wasn't professionally peer-reviewed in accordance with ASTM and AASHTO standards, why include that sentence? I'm willing to grant you that ASTM could have a rock-dating standard; I haven't found it yet, but there are enough ASTM standards that I could be missing something obscure. However, for those not familiar with it, the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) is hardly the body to develop standards for dating anything.

      So as I said, why bring it up, what does it add to anything, other than as a red herring? There is no AASHTO standard for dating rock, therefore the Bat Creek Stone cannot have been, and these are your words, not mine, "professionally peer-reviewed in accordance with ASTM and AASHTO standards."

    2. - "Nice try though!"

      What an ironic closing for a song-and-dance attempt to deflect attention from the fact that you've been caught in yet another lie.

    3. Thanks for your comment. I'll be back from the other side of the world next week and will catch up on responding. Even to useless comments like this one.

  3. Now you're just being silly. The point was to demonstrate there are specific standards in our industry. The specific standard that most applies to the work we did on the Bat Creek Stone is ASTM C856. You'll see it is very comprehensive and leaves open several other testing procedures and apparatus where appropriate based on the judgment of the petrographer.

    1. It's the standard for thin-slice examination of concrete sections, which will tell you quite a bit... about concrete sections, and absolutely nothing at all about the wear level of the surface of a specimen, which is what matters in determining the age of a worked artifact. The definitions of the test and its limits are pretty up-front:

      "The petrographic procedures outlined herein are applicable to the examination of samples of all types of hardened hydraulic-cement mixtures, including concrete, mortar, grout, plaster, stucco, terrazzo, and the like."

      In short, it's not applicable to a relatively homogeneous siltstone. The overwhelming majority of the tests which it references are tied to the engineering properties of concrete, not the mechanical weathering of its surface. Unless you were testing the Bat Creek Stone for ASR formation, I'm not seeing how ASTM C856 even relates to an artifact like this, that I presume you were not allowed to perform destructive tests, since the stone at the time belonged to the Smithsonian. Since ASR takes place in a rapid enough period that it's been documented in the history of portland concrete construction (in other words, in the last century, with most work on ASR performed in the last 30 years), I fail to see how it relates.

    2. Would you care to identify yourself? I think I know who you are.

      In any case, you're getting bogged down in details that you know are not relevant to the work I did. The ASTM C856 procedure serves as a guide for procedures used in the examination. You must have read that a part of the 856 procedure, ASTM: C295, petrographic analysis of aggregates and rock, is the appropriate section used in the examination of the Bat Creek Stone.

      We followed an examination protocol of starting off by looking at the large scale features and then working small. This was a non-invasive examination that employed primarily reflected light microscopy and scanning electron microscopy.

    3. I could identify myself, but what's the point if you already know who I am?

      So which is it - did you strictly adhere to the procedure, or did you use it as a guide? And which is it, ASTM C856, or ASTM C295? And if you're closely adhering to the ASTM standard, why are you using a petrographic analysis for aggregates on a sample that wouldn't pass a one-inch sieve if you stood on it?

    4. But, in all due respect, claiming that there are standards to follow is not the same as proving you followed those standards - or applied them correctly.

    5. Stop being silly and let us know who you are.

      At this point, you know as a licensed professionals we use our judgment to follow the proper protocols. It is now time for you to refer to my report as the basis for further questions.

      Here is the link:

    6. RLewis,

      Here's where the professional license comes into play; if we did not follow proper protocol or made exhibited poor judgment it would have been flagged during peer review.

    7. Scott,

      First I do enjoy the show. While I do have issues with the overall presentation and pacing it still is a fun watch, I just wish it moved a bit faster and delved into the topics in more detail.

      I must admit here to being a bit confused with this whole peer review thing. In you response to Dr. Smith you said "My geological work on the Bat Creek Stone was professionally peer-reviewed in accordance with ASTM and AASHTO standards" but in you response above you said "The reference to AASHTO specifications was meant to demonstrate that in the professional world I work in we strictly adhere to industry regulations and procedures".

      Are you saying that you Bat Creek Stone results was submitted to a journal and you results and finding where accept by a others? Or are you saying that the methodology you used in you testing of the Bat Creek Stone was an accepted methodology as dictated by the standards of the ASTM and AASHTO and if your testing was outside the standard your peers could flag you during a peer review of the methodology?

      I guess I am confused because those are two different things all together, one could follow all accepted methods and still arrive a a hypothesis that is incorrect.

      A peer review is submitting your work to a journal and asking you peers to review both the methods and the conclusions reached, not just saying if my methods where unsound I would be flagged and perhaps lose my license.

      If your finding have not been presented to other scientists for review and you are sure that others would reproduce the same results you have than that seems to be the best way to solve the problem with the Smithsonian. If several different groups of researchers are coming up with the same results that say the Bat Creek Stone is authentic than the Smithsonian would have to accept it as real.

    8. First, yes my work was professionally peer-reviewed as I have stated a number to times. Framing the argument as seems to be your style, by insinuating the academic peer-review process is the only way to get reliable research results is inappropriate and inaccurate. It apparently don't like the answer I give, so you ask again apparently hoping for a different answer.

      The Smithsonian will never accept the Bat Creek Stone as geniune no matter how many academic journals I submit my work to. I submit Hu McCulloch's peer-reviewed work conclusively refuting Mainfort and Kwas as evidence.

      Can you please tell us who you are?

    9. Scott,

      First I am not one of the above commenters. Per your suggestion I took a look at the report you conducted on the Bat Creek Stone. Just by taking a look at the work you did I have some questions. First, based on the report I am not sure how you can definitively state that the stone is authentic. The report doesn't show that you are able to verify any particular age to the stone. I think the report is interesting in its review of the type of stone, inscription depth and polishing of the surface. But I am not sure how you were to determine the age of the stone based on these techniques. In fact you specifically listed of a minimum of 7 additional tests to further determine the authenticity of the stone being reviewed.

      Also I wanted to ask some additional questions over the 3rd point of your report. Specifically your review of the original field reports. Were you able to review all original field reports that Emmert and the rest of the team completed? Also please do not view this next question as a shot at you but more to the statement you made in your report. You specifically state “Mr. Emmert’s field work and documentation appears to be more than competent by the standards of his time and should stand on their own merit.” As a follow up question how were you able to determine the archaeological standards of the time. Do you have experience in the changing standards of archaeological practices as the science has evolved over time?

      So I am not sure based on the provided report that authenticity could be determined.

    10. You are certainly welcome to your opinion it is not authentic, but I respectfully disagree.

      With regard to archaeological standards question; Barbara Duncan, with the Museum of the Cherokee Indian, stated that during Emmert's time there were not archaeological standards.

      During my first (of three) examination of the artifact, then Director of the McClung Museum gave me what I understood were copies of all correspondence between John Emmert and Cyrus Thomas along with all of his field notes of John Emmert related to the three Bat Creek Mound excavations. After running a materials forensic laboratory for over 25 years, in my opinion his attention to detail and thoroughness was impressive.

    11. The other Anonymous,

      Scott sorry if I came across critical that was not my intention.

      I was just trying to clarify something I was confused by. I was not sure if you where saying that if your paper was submitted for review and the results where accepted by peers or it the methodology was accepted. Your two statements seemed to be in conflict.

      I myself do not have a science background but my father is a Nuclear Physicist and Electronic Engineer (long retired) who spent most of my life working in developing silicon carbides and how they can be applied in shielding against radiation in space. My understanding of the Peer Review process only comes from him and his work. I know when he was developing the different process I saw his frustrations and excitement when his reviews where either accepted or rejected.

      I only offered the suggestion of having other scientists try to replicate your results because I saw how that worked for my father.

      Anyway sorry for the confusion and keep up the fight.

    12. TOA,

      No offense taken. I'm sure now that the artifact is in Cherokee hands, any serious and competent researchers interested in examining the stone attempting to replicate my work will have that opportunity. Further, I would be happy to assist whoever that may in any way I can.

      I think the confusion comes in when you realize how different things are in the academic and professional worlds. I would argue the professional scientific peer review process is more thorough and objective. In my career to date, I have never witnessed personal differences impact the peer review process inappropriately. I heard from a PhD candidate just today who emphatically said the same is not true in academia.

    13. Scott,

      I did not state if I believed it was authentic or not, just based on the information you provided authentication could not be verified. So based on your response, you did not review the official reports from the Smithsonian for all work done at the site, including work done by others at the site concerning the conditions of the site at the time. I do agree archaeological standards at the time were poor or non existent so I am unsure how you are able to take his reports as necessarily competent and accurate. I have worked at a couple of different sites in my college days. Obviously standards are very different now, but I could see any professional archaeologist to be skeptical based on the current evidence.

      Again I am not saying it isn't authentic, just that the evidence given so far is not enough to state it is. I understand that you believe it so, but based on the methodology and standards the Smithsonian relies upon when authenticating items you can not fault them for not agreeing with you.

    14. Let me ask you a question; who decides what is authentic? The Smithsonian? This past week they have demonstrated to me, to the Cherokee, and at least a few scholars including Hu McCulloch, they are not competent enough to render an opinion worth respecting.

      In fact, I have reviewed the Smithsonian reports. I happen to own a copy of their official 3-page report in Volume Twelve of the Bureau of Ethnology’s Annual Report to the Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution (pages 391-393) where they erroneously stated, "The engraved characters on it are beyond question letters of the Cherokee alphabet..." This begs the question; if they were wrong about the Bat Creek Stone inscription, what else are they wrong about?

      So yes, I certainly can find fault with them not agreeing with me.

      I think you are also missing a very important point about the current institution’s leadership accusing John Emmert of fraud. Since they can't pick and choose, they have to throw out every dig Emmert was involved in. In fact, how do we know every field agent wasn't incompetent? We don't. By implicating Emmert without any factual evidence throws the entire mound survey project into question.

      The Smithsonian is walking a very slippery slope right now...

    15. your show prove that bullshit sells!

  4. Mr Scott Wolter, if you want to light a fire under the D.C crowd like
    the way you want to, greatly humour running for a seat in the good
    ole House of Representatives as in a.s.a.p! On the BCS, let it go,
    the tribe is not into the establishment mind set the D.G crowd has.
    I do feel Gunn Sinclair is very correct, the KRS needs more than
    one good looksie into it! I am awaiting thy SOLUTREAN hypothesis
    episode. Did you know that in the U.K they found North Sea seaside
    800,000 year old footprints that predate hapless DOGGERLAND???

    1. J.A.

      Politics is not in my future; I'd rather have my nails pulled out with pliers...

      On the contrary, already the Smithsonian has softened its official statement as of yesterday. They still say it's a hoax, but have backed away from accusing John Emmert. They need to held accountable as many people are holding me accountable.

      I think both are fair.

      Don't know anything about the footprints, but I'm skeptical until I see them with my own eyes. Several people have forwarded pictures and sent me samples (seriously), but nothing legitimate yet.

  5. good luck on getting them to do an 180 degree turn!

  6. See above post; we'll never get anything changed by not trying.

  7. the possible Homo Heidelbergensis and/or Proto-Neanderthal 800,000 year old
    prints were in silts and clays or the like, the North Sea opened them up in an
    area that has severe erosion, and then reclaimed them. In the short interim, they
    were scanned by a powerful laser device that records short distances, and they
    had plaster casts taken in a manner not unlike assumed Bigfoot, Yeti or Yowie
    prints! The volcanic Laetoli prints are where things are standard text at! These
    were fleeting and like William Blakes poetry, in a time like several of the milder seasons Doggerland has much later on, before the Storegga slide. You are a
    good geologist, the irony of this should draw you into this freakish occurance!

    1. Based on the photos I saw, I'm skeptical they are footprints; I need to see them with my own eyes.

      We have a pretty full slate at the moment, but who knows, maybe we'll take a closer look in the near future?

  8. Good point about John Emmert and how polite they are in that they are not
    assuming he took a relic from the Mid-East in the Old World and planted it
    in the mound in the New World. Lets assume there was no hoaxing being
    done but the BCS like the KRS is VERY old and predates the year A.D 1750
    at the very least. You are very correct in that the scratches are newer than
    the letters in that alphabet. I only hope the tribe takes this all seriously as I
    think once again about how Andrew Jackson deliberately flouted one of the
    wiser rulings by Chief Justice John Marshall in the 1830s. We hope the tribe
    KNOWS how important the artifact is, and why they are now inside this long
    ongoing debate. In New England the Wampanoag are regaining a literacy as
    well as an ancient tongue in a manner similar to the South of Ireland in the 20s. The Cherokee are a proud people & have a very long history.

    1. J.A.

      I can assure you the Cherokee elders know exactly what they are doing with regard to the current Bat Creek Stone situation. Even the Smithsonian and their agents, as stubborn as they are, cannot argue the wisdom of putting aside the past and starting the investigation anew. All the artifacts are now availble for testing and we'll let the facts lead us to the truth.

  9. Scott,

    The only basis I have for evaluating your analysis of the Bat Creek Stone is what you presented on America Unearthed. It is my understanding that you authenticated the inscription by comparing them to marks made sometime later, finding that (1) the later marks contained microscopic debris that was not present in the inscription and (2) that the letters were more weathered than the later marks.

    However, I can think of several potential explanations for these facts that are consistent with the carvings being made in 1889, when the Stone was allegedly discovered. First, a careful forger, in an effort to remove visible debris, might have done such a thorough job that he removed the microscopic debris as well. Secondly, the debris might have been cleaned out in the course of maintenance or in connection with some test conducted on the inscription before the marks were made. Thirdly, if the absence of debris is a result of the passage of time, as your use of it as evidencing the age of the carvings, perhaps 125 years is enough time to remove it all.

    With respect to weathering, if the later marks were made decades after 1889, perhaps that is enough time to account for the difference in weathering you observed. The weathering of the letters might even have been aggravated by tests conducted by earlier scientific studies. Then again, a careful forger might have treated the Stone to simulate the effect of weathering, as was the case with the notorious Piltdown fossils only a couple of decades later.

    If you eliminated these possibilities, I did not see any evidence of it on the TV show. Can you explain how you did so, or better yet, direct interested people to a report that explains why those are not real possibilities?

    I am Jewish, so proof of a Jewish presence in pre-Columbian America would be of great interest to me. Further, I do not doubt that you sincerely believe in the genuineness of this artifact. However, everyone has the potential to make mistakes – even Einstein did so in the course of his career – so I cannot in good conscience accept the Bat Creek Stone as genuine without more evidence than you have provided to date.

    I get that you do not trust the Smithsonian. But surely there are competent, conscientious scientists who can evaluate your work and lend support to your claims, if your work withstands their objective scrutiny. Indeed, revealing one’s full methodology is crucial, because the confirmation of claims by testing them again and again increases the credibility of those claims and is a basic part of good science.

    1. Scott,

      If it helps you to answer my foregoing question, I subsequently found and reviewed what appears to be your report on the Bat Creek Stone dated July 14, 2010. As far as I can discern from the report, your analysis does not disprove any of the possible alternative explanations I proposed. The only evidence that the inscription predates 1889, so far as I can tell, are the reports of John Emmert on how he discovered it, but you rule out Emmert as a possible forger because “there is no direct evidence that we have discovered to support such speculation which casts doubt on the veracity of the discovery.”

      Is there anything in the report bearing on the possibilities I raised above that I missed? Did you find any “direct evidence” that proves that the inscription is pre-Columbian? Is there anything in your analysis of the Stone itself that eliminates those possibilities, but is not in the report?

      Thank you in advance for your response.

    2. Harry,

      The alternate possibilities have no merit without factual support. Until those facts materialize your alternate possibilities should not taken seriously. Sadly, some academics believe this still serves as a basis to implicate Emmert when in a court of law these unfounded accusations would not be admissible. Why should academia give credibility that isn't deserved?

      I have stated multiple times now that by association with the dated wooden artifacts, and confirmed by my weathering evidence, the Bat Creek Stone is at least 1500 years old.

    3. Thank you for your response. I do not see where in your Report of April 14, 2010 that you find that the weathering confirms that the inscription is at least 1500 years old. Would you cite the page or pages where you make that finding and explain how you reached that conclusion? If it is not in the report, would you explain how the evidence supports that conclusion and direct me to the appropriate report? Thanks again.

    4. Scott,

      I have reviewed your report dated July 14, 2010 on the weathering of the Bat Creek Inscription. Admittedly, the weathering does not disprove that the inscription is 1500 years old, but neither does it prove that the inscription is older than 1889, nor does you report claim that it does. The report itself does conclude that the inscription is genuine, but for reasons that have nothing to do with weathering. Therefore, it is inaccurate to say that your weathering evidence confirms the authenticity of the inscription.

      I also discovered that the Smithsonian does have a factual basis for claiming fraud. A whole sequence of letters in the inscription matches letters in a paleo-Hebrew phrase published in a book in 1870, and experts on ancient Hebrew have raised serious questions about the accuracy of some of the letters in the Bat Creek inscription. Even J. Houston McCulloch, who defends the inscription, admitted in a 1988 paper that one of the letters was from the fourth century B.C., which is way to early to show up in an inscription whose other letters date from the first or second centuries A.D.

      In fact, so far as I have been able to discover, the only relics from the same dig that can be dated to the pre-Columbian era were wooden ear spools, something no ancient Judean was known to wear.

      Although the fact that McCulloch was an economist does not necessarily mean that he is wrong, the Smithsonian is well within its rights to accept the opinion of scholars discussing something in their field of expertise over that of an amateur.

    5. Harry,

      Exactly what report did you read? My conclusion was largely based on the pristine condition (lack of any remnant silty clay) within the grooves of the inscription that could only be produced by lengthy weathering in a wet burial mound. If you believe something different, then present the facts that support your opinion.

      Notice that I haven't demanded you present your academic qualifications. I don't care if you no college education; if your factual evidence is sound I will accept it. You have presented nothing to support your belief.

      The Smithsonian has no factual basis for anything they claim in this matter. If the inscription existed in the distant past, then it could easily exist in the 1800s and of course today. So what? If proves nothing. Of course, they fail to point out the word separator on the Bat Creek inscription which is consistent with ancient Hebrew, but is not present in their 1870 example? At least the Smithsonian and their attack dogs are consistent in presenting only what supports their predetermined position.

    6. Scott,

      Thank you again for your response and for clarifying your report.

      You ought to notice that I am not saying that you and J. Houston McCulloch must be wrong in saying that the Bat Creek inscription is genuine or that you can never prove the Smithsonian wrong. What I am saying is: (1) your report of July 14, 2010 (available online at does not prove that it is genuine; and (2) given the current state of the evidence that has been brought to its attention, the Smithsonian is not being unreasonable.

      On the first point, your report merely says that the weathering “is consistent” with the Stone being buried for hundreds of years (see page 19, conclusion 2). I took that to mean that it could be caused by such burial, not that there is no other possible information. Your report also says a few paragraphs before: “Since we did not observe any of the orange-colored silty clay in the grooves of the inscription, and the overall surface of the stone and the edges of the grooves were polished at the time of discovery, the inscription had to be made prior to the excavation of the mound by John Emmert” (see page 19, finding 6). However, the report does not relate the absence of silty clay to the weathering and, since “consistent” is not the same as “had to be,” it does not say how much earlier than the supposed “discovery” the inscription had to be made. Even if Emmert carved the inscription himself, he had to have done so before claiming to “discover” it.

      You now appear to say that there is no other explanation for lack of silty clay in the inscription except for lengthy burial in wet clay. If you are right, then it must be genuine. That might be the only way to do it naturally, but I remain skeptical that it is the only possible explanation. I do not understand why Emmert or someone cleaning the artifact later could not have removed all of the silty clay. The mere fact that I cannot describe the technique does not mean that it is impossible or unlikely. For instance, I do not know how to compare feldspar to determine if the Throne of Destiny came from some spot in Israel, but that does not mean that you can’t do it. And I am not convinced that you can rule out artificial removal of silty clay from the Bat Creek inscription, since the technique might not require knowledge of geology. Of course, I would not be raising this issue if there was no reason to otherwise be suspicious of the inscription.

      And that leads me to my second point. The fact that ancient Hebrew used word dividers was something Emmert could have known in 1889; McCulloch himself, in the course of defending the genuineness of the inscription, cites an example of such word dividers discovered in 1880 (see his 2005 paper, “The Bat Creek Stone Revisited,” page 7; this and the article I cite below are referenced in your report). Therefore, the use of a word divider in the inscription does not prove its genuineness. On the other hand, the fact that even McCulloch admits that the form of the “waw” in the inscription dates from several centuries before those of every other letter (see his 1988 article, “The Bat Creek Inscription: Cherokee or Hebrew,” Table 3 in the Tennessee Anthropologist, Vol. XIII, at page 90). The fact that one letter is so obsolete (from the perspective of the carver) ought to be a red flag that something is amiss. The fact that various experts in paleo-Hebrew have had problems with other letters, as well, ought to raise other red flags. And, frankly, the fact that this inscription was found so far inland, rather than on or near the Atlantic, ought to be another red flag. All of these are causes for skepticism until further research (or a more convincing explanation of prior research) produces enough evidence to explain those anomalies or otherwise rule out forgery as a realistic possibility.

  10. There is a rock carving high in the mountains of NC about 30 miles as the crow flies from where the bat creek stone was found that is dated 1615. Its been a bit of a mystery but is believed to have been left by Sephardic jews because its written in ladino. Not sure if theres a relation in any way to the bat creek stone but it is interesting none the less and seems little known.

    1. Aaron,

      Is there any chance you could get pictures of the carvings? Taking pictures after dark, with low angle flashlight will really bring out whatever is carved there. If dated, these carvings are especially helpful in understanding weathering of whatever rock type it is since we know exactly how long it's been in that particular environment.


      i just found this article online! is this it? there was a write up!

    3. Nice; next time I'm in the area I'll have to check it out.


    4. I haven't seen the carving in a few years but this is the one I was referring to
      There is also a few pictures online of it here the extremely remote location is what always puzzled me

  11. the BCS may be a test for the Smithsonian. We have before us often in our
    museums artifacts of the dead and ancestral bones. the tribe wants to be in
    a position to bury the remains of the dead who were disturbed in the pursuit
    of science & knowledge. lets face it, looters could loot Pompeii in the 1700s
    because the tragic dead are passages in dusty libraries and remote from the
    living. The genius level decision to pour plaster into empty spaces is indeed
    very 20th Century and gave us an insight into the fates of the long ago departed.
    if the BCS is not a hoax, and John Emmert was more detailed and honest than
    many of his contemporaries, it does ask a question. Your suggestion of new
    non-invasive or destructive tests is at the discretion of the tribe, they might
    decide to gather 4 or 5 experts before either going through with a quiet burial or
    going through with having the BCS on public display. The artifact has a history!

    1. We might be over-thinking this; the inscription was found within a bundle with several other artifacts including wood that has been dated to at least 1500 years old. The weathering of the inscription is consistent with that, but by association it has to be at least that old. Further, the brass bracelets are consistent with early Jewish brass work in the Mediterranean region. Native Americans are not known to have practiced metallurgy at that time. Done.

      Because I am privy to the inner workings of the tribe in this matter, I won't be sharing details. We all need to respect their culture and traditions when it comes to funerary objects such as these. They are just as interested if not more than we are in getting to the truth. They know what they are doing and will make the right decisions about the artifacts.

      The Smithsonian said they can't find the jawbones Emmert wrote in his notes he collected. I don't believe them and neither does the Cherokee.

      Stay tuned.

    2. I know that you believe the stone to be authentic, but your counter argument has several errors. First the items found in the mound were copper, also there are several examples of native americans working with copper to create tools and weapons.

      As I have stated before, in your own report you have not been able to age the inscription of the stone. Since additional evidence has not been presented and there is no way to accurately date the carving how are you able to claim it is 100% authentic. Also due to the lack of standard procedures during the actual discovery it is hard to verify how the stone was found and the accuracy of the report.

    3. My beliefs are irrelevant to this matter.

      The bracelets are not copper, they both brass comprised of roughly 2/3 copper, 1/3 zinc, and approximately 3% lead.

      You are simply being obstinate and refuse to accept the data which is your choice. By association everything found in the bundle dates to the minimum age of the C-14 dated wood. There is no evidence to suggest anything nefarious occurred at the time of the dig and the physical evidence on the stone is consistent with hundreds of years of weathering. Therefore, based on the consistency of the factual evidence all the artifacts must be accepted as genuine. It’s that simple.

      However, you are free to believe whatever you want.

  12. You understand the basic logic of my work just fine. The bottom line is there are weak chemical bonds between clay particles within the debris created when the lines were cut. It takes time for those bonds to be broken by slowly percolating water and the debris carried away in solution. Those conditions existed in the wet mound as described by Emmert and are consistent with lengthy burial. This is why the debris hasn't changed at all in the control scratches since were made sometime prior to 1970.

    Is it possible a clever forger could replicate this process? Not in my opinion as all the grooves in the inscription were smooth, clean as could be, and showed no evidence of scratches at the bottom of the grooves that would surely be there had someone mechanically tried to remove the debris. The weathering of the grooves looks completely natural to me and I suspect at this juncture, I've probably looked at more modern and highly weathered man-made inscriptions than anyone.

    The other issue skeptics are entirely too flippant with is the claim that Emmert committed forgery. I am especially bothered by this for two reasons. First, there is not one shred of factual evidence to implicate John Emmert of anything questionable. It wasn't until after 80 years when it was realized to be Hebrew that things went in the ditch. Don't you find it curious that as soon as Cyrus Gordon said it was ancient Hebrew, the Smithsonian's react wasn't, "That's interesting, let's try to get to the bottom of this." No, their immediate reaction was, It's a fake!" And since have tried anything and everything to make it go away.

    Second, not only was John Emmert a Civil War hero who was wounded twice, he was both a constable and Freemason. To become a member of either group you have to be vetted and found to have good character. I’ve already touched on the fact that if the Smithsonian questions this dig, you put the entire Mound Survey into question. How they can’t see that speaks to their incompetence or worse. I find it reprehensible that Emmert's reputation has been dragged through the mud in what can only be a desperate attempt to preserve a paradigm.

    I am happy to have anyone try to evaluate and/or replicate my work on the artifact and as I've said repeatedly, my work has already been professionally peer-reviewed.

    I’m sorry, but I don't see it any other way. You can take pride that at the very least one knowledgeable Hebrew made it to North America around the time of Christ.

  13. Scott,

    I enjoy your show, finding it both informative and entertaining. The format of the show is neither boring nor standoffish. However, I do like to keep an open mind and draw my own conclusions from multiple sources. At the end of the day, reviewing actual physical evidence and engaging in intellectual discourse is a credible means to ferret out the truth, or at least arrive at a conclusion that is not solely based on speculation or conjecture.

    With respect to the BCS and the methodology with which you used to conclude its authenticity, you put forth a compelling argument. No matter what and how you present your findings, you will always have critics and detractors, crying foul like “bitchy little girls,” as Sam Axe would say to Michael Westen on Burn Notice. Peer reviews have their place; they provide a forum for community members to prod, poke, and dissect a finding or conclusion. That’s fine and let them have their cake, but I’d put more faith in expert testimony under oath. Maybe not practical for all occasions, but certainly calling subject matter experts into a room offers another way to arrive at a destination. It’s one thing to make a counterpoint vis-a-vis a peer review, but under oath it’s a game changer as you well know in your profession.

    Being a naturally-born skeptic, I do see the other side of the coin as it flips on its way down to the ground. The authenticity of the BCS is plausible to me, given the data and information that is presently accessible. I’ll look forward to additional documentation and empirical analysis as it becomes available.

    Again, I enjoy the show and look forward to further episodes. Keep uncovering.

    1. Kenny,

      Well said! Our hope with the Cherokee is to initiate a new round of testing of all the Bat Creek artifacts found in Mound #3. I know the plan is to also invite skeptical scholars to participate. It should be a great opportunity to work together and find common ground. It should be fun.

  14. I was a staff archeologist in Utah late 1970s. Before I arrived a carving assumed to be of an antelope head had criss crossing lines on the body. Some wrote to the state archeologists the markings were runic something like here lies siggy. To get more info as to archeologist see Backhoe Village. (I searched and searched but find no comment or feedback button on

    1. It would be great to take a look at a picture of this carving if one could be located.

  15. This is Darwin Ohman. I do not have an account to publish so it is going up as Anonymous,

    Tara, I enjoy your questions and the dialog as a result of your posts. I would like to qualify up front that I am neither a scholar or a scientist but would like to post some facts regarding the KRS story as it relates to intellectual integrity.

    The KRS came out of the gate with a bad start. Two handwritten copies, made by different people were sent to different scholars to review. Both copies missed a lot of marks that were not seen at the time due to soil on the stone. As a result the linguists didn't have an accurate copy to work with. It was deemed a hoax at that time, not due to evidence but lack of. They didn't recognize the runes, therefore a hoax. The correct answer should have been "I don't know".

    The other problem is that the runes had been cleaned out with a nail by my grandfather so they could see the runes. It was winter with kerosene lamps for lighting. Later, when the runes were looked at by others, they appeared fresh. None of the scholars asked any questions, again deemed a hoax. It wasn't until the investigation in the early 2000s when Scott did a photo study and these issues were noted. Factual evidence resolved these points almost 100 years later. One would ask, why did it take 100 years to discover this. No one looked. Scholars had made the hoax diagnosis but had never looked into it further.

    I am only posting this because it is an example of what happened and where is has come 100 years later with a fresh look by someone who was interested. The KRS is real and all one has to do is look at the evidence.

    Scott, I enjoy AU and hope that it gets people to ask questions about our history. Keep it up!

    Darwin Ohman

    1. Whether on parchment or paper, ink over time fades. Sometimes a faded
      document has people who "touch it up" by inking over the words that are
      fading. If a nail was recently taken to many of the runes of the KRS, this
      does change things! the picture becomes more complex and difficult. If the
      stone is more than 500 years of age & originally carved in the New World,
      then everything about it is different than if its less than 250 years of age
      and done at a point of eastern expansion. I noticed up above a thread on
      the curious N.C rock carving, and Spanish explorers. We do have the old
      Dare Stone controversy. If the KRS is not Old World and predates both
      Enland and Spain having territorial ambitions, there is quite a story to tell!

  16. Darwin,

    You bring up a good point that many people are not aware of. The KRS research did get off to a poor start and upon scrutiny it becomes ever more clear how it became considered a hoax. It's a complicated story that only in the last decade have all the pieces to the puzzle been available. Those pieces fit into a cohesive and conclusive picture of authenticity.

    In time, when the thoughtful minds have had time to consider all the facts they will come to the same conclusion.

  17. Hi Scott,

    Love the show, and just found this blog. But you have me very confused when you refer to peer-review. You said "Here's where the professional license comes into play; if we did not follow proper protocol or made exhibited poor judgment it would have been flagged during peer review."

    Peer-review has always been part of the publishing and distributing of scientific information, and it has always involved submitting a paper in a journal read and edited by people who practice and/or study that particular science. So my question is where can I find the paper (or the abstract) for the research you've published? I assumed it was vetted and passed during the peer-review process, so it should be available (at least for purchase). Can you link to it? The only thing I found on your site was the report you provided to the Eastern Band of Cherokee.

    And I'm confused about a comment you made to a hostile commenter. You said "First, yes my work was professionally peer-reviewed as I have stated a number to times. Framing the argument as seems to be your style, by insinuating the academic peer-review process is the only way to get reliable research results is inappropriate and inaccurate. "

    I don't understand what you mean here. I don't see how the academic peer-review process "gets" anything in terms of research. Don't you first do the research, then write up the paper, and then send it out for review? The only thing I can see the review process doing is challenging either your methodology or your conclusions, but that's common -- and expected -- for every science. I'm not clear what you're trying to say here, but I haven't read the journal article either, so I don't feel like I have all the info. Thank you for the show and the blog!

    Kelly Osbourne (no relation! LOL)
    Newburgh, Indiana

  18. Kevin,

    What I'm referring to is the difference between the professional and academic peer review processes. The academic process is closer to what you described. In the professional world and in my laboratory, our work goes through at least two rounds of peer review. The factual laboratory data generated is reviewed by another petrographer, and then by me or the project manager. For any report requiring an opinion, the licensed geologist or engineer writes the report and it get peer reviewed by at least one or two other licensed colleagues. The appropriate comments and corrections are addressed and the report is then sent out with the appropriate signatures of the PG (Professional Geologist) or PE (Professional Engineer).

    Keep in mind, a high percentage of the forensic work we do ends up in litigation. I have testified many times under oath and everything we do is subject to detailed scrutiny under examination. Experts on the other side of these cases dissect every aspect of our work to try and find anything to undermine our findings.

    It would be interesting to see how Mainfort and Kwas' accusations of John Emmert would hold up under such scrutiny. Their lawyers would tell them to give it up long before trial. I would respectfully argue the professional standards of review and scrutiny is much less subjective, and more thorough than the academic peer review process.

    I hope this answered your question?

    1. Hi again! I'm not Kevin, but I think this was the answer to my question, so thank you!

  19. Scott:

    Labeling the the checking of your work by your business partners and friends as a "peer review" is ridiculous. And, just because you deem it so does not mean that it will be accepted by anyone else. A true peer review can only take place when your research is put on public display for all to see, evaluate, and recreate. If we all accepted your version of "peer review" then we would also have to accept as indisputable fact that I am the most handsome man in the world. Why? I think I'm gorgeous, and my own mother has confirmed this fact through a "peer review" process similar to the one performed by your business partners.

    Further, you cannot change academic thinking by arguing as you would in a court of law. Lay people might not understand why or what the difference is, but the current process works. If you want to set up your own rules then you should not be surprised when researchers assume your work is flawed. If there is a conspiracy against your claims its of your own making.

    I'm not suggesting in any way that your theories are wrong. I'm an academic, and I am publicly stating that I am open to your ideas (no conspiracy or cover-up from me). I'm only saying that serious professionals in the field will never give your work a second look until you decide to operate under the same rules that the rest of us do.

    1. Mr Anonymous,

      Nobody is trying to change the rules; I'm just telling you the way is works in the professional world. Your ‘Handsome man” analogy makes no sense and is irrelevant to this discussion. You seem to think the academic way is the only way. I would argue the academic way is why we are in this mess in the first place. In addition to my peer-reviewed geological reports on the Bat Creek Stone and Kensington Rune Stone, I have also published three books on these and other subjects that you and your colleagues are free to review. They have been out there for several years now so have at it!

  20. Scott,

    Publishing a book is different that submitting a paper to a peer review in journals. You claim to have invented a new process in dating, yet beyond your books, show, and it seems your lab no other geologist have been given the opportunity to review your procedures and see if they can reproduce your results.

    You cannot simply say in the professional world this is how its done, because there are many engineers, scientists, biologists, physicists, pharmacologists, medical doctors, behaviorists, ect.... that have to submit there processes and finding to peer review before their hypothesis and process can be accepted as sound. Maybe in you profession that might not be the case. You however have expanded your reach beyond your trained profession and journeyed into the world of archeology. history and anthropology and when doing so you have to expect to be able to conform that the set standards and process that exist there, just as like if someone wanted to venture in the world of structural geology one would expect them (for the safety of others) to learn and understand the process of that profession.

    Plus in litigation there is a review process, before someone appears in court they must present their findings to both councils, the councils than consult their own experts (if they so deem) and if question then present their opposing view in court. That said it is not uncommon that the judge or jury ignores the science of a given subject whether it is computer forensics, DNA, or psychological profiles. So it cannot be assumed a given that just because something is accepted in a court of law that the science behind it is sound, it simple was convincing enough for a judge or jury.

    I stand mixed about you claims about the Kensington Runestone simply because several people that you worked with including your co-author has since called into question the results. Now I don't know the reason for this but I do know that it begs questioning. On this blog in the past you have said you have knowingly miss-used the definition of Archeo-astrology in the hopes of helping people understand what it is, which is confusing to say the least. By actions you have shown that you are willing to bend facts to meet a different standard.

    I want to believe what you say in your books and your show but you make it hard and seem to play loose with things. Peer Review prevents you from doing that, but doing hard science also does not always lead to better rating or book sales.

    1. Michael,

      I feel like this discussion has becoming a broken record. With regard to my former co-author, I would direct to the following for more perspective on this sad situation: What happened between us had to do with money and what he perceived as his lack of getting attention and proper credit.

      Since we are on the subject of academic peer review, this sordid situation serves as an example of academic peer review gone amok. In 2008, Dr. Nielsen convinced the Runestone Museum to allow him to perform a low resolution 3D scan of the Kensington Rune Stone. He then wrote a contract by design that resulted in the Museum not being granted access to all of the original data. Nielsen only provided low resolution still photos of his choosing. To this day Nielsen has not allowed anyone to review the raw 3D data except Professor Henrik Williams whom he is in cahoots with. I agree it was the Museum’s fault they didn’t catch the clever wording, but why did Nielsen trick them in the first place? Having worked very closely with him for six years I know him very well and I am certain it was intentional. In any case, Nielsen then proceeded to write and publish several non-peer reviewed papers bashing me personally and anything and everything he and I had previously published in our papers and books. This was all done in the hopes of resurrecting the Kensington Rune Stone research in his image.

      Sounds incredible doesn’t it? Well, it is incredible, but it’s also true. He’s a smart guy, but his biggest problem is he refuses to this day to let anyone review the low res 3D data. And why do you think that is? The simple reason is the papers are garbage and solely designed to discredit me and my work, and elevate himself. Just yesterday, a scholar emailed me criticizing my work and citing Nielsen’s papers on specific items.

      I’ve just made some very serious charges and if I were Nielsen and my statements here were not true, I’d file a lawsuit for slander immediately. He won’t of course, because knows every word of it is true. So what are we do about this situation?

      So much for the academic process of peer review…

    2. Scott:

      Your ‘peer-review gone amok” comment above makes no sense and is irrelevant to the discussion. in one sentence you claim that Nielsen has not let anyone review his 3D studies. Later you claim that some "scholar" used the "non-peer reviewed" papers to criticize your work. Aside from being confusing, it would seem that this situation has nothing to do with a true "peer-review" process, and can't reasonably be used to refute the process of peer-review.

  21. To break down your response point by point...

    1. You are right. "Nobody is trying to change the rules". Why? Because the rules regarding science and research work. I'm just suggesting you try using them sometime.

    2. Science does not rely on the "professional world", but the "professional world" certainly does rely on science.

    3. My "handsome man" analogy is extremely apt. The logic used is the same logic you employ when trying to convince your followers that you allow your work to be peer-reviewed when you in fact do not. Instead, your work is read by an unquestioning audience of work colleagues and friends. Dismissing the analogy does nothing other than give the appearance you are avoiding my claim.

    4. When trying to change a paradigm, the framework and way in which we as a scientific community think, the academic way IS the only way. Without employment of the scientific method you are simply asking people to take "your word for it". If you truly want to be taken seriously you're going to have to do more than you're doing.

    5. What exactly is the "mess" you're referring to? You always talk in these vague and negative generalities while projecting the image that the knowledge only you possess is the answer to saving us all. I guess if people truly accept your unsupported Templar theories over millions of man hours of research done on period documents by thousands of scientists over the course of hundreds of years then maybe as a society we do have a mess on our hands.

    6. "Peer-reviewed" use this term incorrectly much the same way you use the term "archaeoastronomy". It has been established by previous posters and reiterated by myself here that you are NOT using a true "peer-review" process. You are single-handedly trying to redefine the word in an attempt to make your outlandish claims seem more substantial than they are.

    7. You've been telling us all (quite irresponsibly) that our history books are all wrong. Now you cite the fact that you have published three books as if it were a resume builder. Which is it? Are books to be believed or are they rubbish? Anyone with a story to tell and $100 to spend can publish a book. Publishing a book is easy, while gaining scientific acceptance through the peer-review process can be difficult. The fact that you've published three books means nothing, and it surprises me that you try to cite your own books as proof for your own theories. It doesn't work this way, and you know it!

    1. Anonymous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5…

      Sorry for the delay; I’m sure you understand the time needed to keep up with a blog. I’ll do my best to keep up. OK, here we go!

      1. If the “rules” work so well, then why are having this discussion about the Bat Creek Stone? Isn’t it obvious the process did not work and we are now cleaning up the mess?

      2. I don’t understand your point other than the obvious sarcasm.

      3. Are you calling me a liar and that my work was not peer reviewed?

      4. I’m getting tired of people like you talking about scientific method like I don’t understand what it is. I think I’ve learned something after 25 running a successful materials forensic laboratory. Can we dispense with this kind of silly talk now?

      5. You know exactly what I mean by the horribly incomplete historical mess created by bad science, cover-ups, agendas and problems of the human condition I’ve seen many times. I invite you to read the “Scandals in Scholarship” chapter in my Kensington Rune Stone: Compelling New Evidence book for just a few examples.

      As far as my Templar research goes, and by the way does happen to be supported by multiple documents (KRS, Spirit Pond Runes Stones, Narragansett Rune Stone, “C”-Document, etc., the Newport Tower, and other evidence, you are neglecting one glaring and obvious point. Do you really think an already highly secretive suppressed military monastic order is going to leave clues to their activities their enemies might use against them? Come on man; you and the academics need to open your mind to other avenues of investigation to get anywhere close to these guys and their successors who are all around you…

      6. I thought the goal of any peer review was to get it right? If you think current and past scholars have a monopoly on “true peer review” then why has it not reached the correct conclusion so many times (KRS, Tucson Lead Artifacts, Bat Creek Stone, Spirit Pond, Newport Tower, etc.)? The Tucson Lead Artifacts is one glaring example of the outright failure of academia who allowed incredible 8-9th century artifacts with amazing stories to tell to be relegated to the dustbin of history. Quite frankly, until certain academics show some integrity and admit to their mistakes people like you are in no position to lecture me about anything.

      7. Did you really say, “The fact that you’ve published three books means nothing? Wow! I wonder what you’d say if you actually read them with an open mind. I’m confident you’d feel differently.

    2. C'mon, man.....

      You are trying to use an imaginary document, one that in no way exists, as proof of your theories? What is the "C Document" and where can I find a copy?

      Am I calling you a liar? I don't know. Are you still insisting that your work has been peer reviewed rather than checked by your business colleagues?

    3. First, stop stealing my lines OK?

      What imaginary document are you referring to? The "C" document? read my new book and you'll find out all about it. You have no idea what this document is about so please read about it before you criticize.

      Yes, my geological work has been peer reviewed by scholars other than my business colleagues. Regardless, my business associates would be more critical of me than anyone else that was objective, and who does the review is immaterial in the end. It's the proper interpretation of the data that matters.

      Quite frankly, the work I've done is simple and straight-forward and the only reason you and other scholar’s struggle with it is because you haven't shown the least bit objectivity as evidenced in your posts. I really don't think you know how.

    4. I cannot find any peer-reviewed work of yours anywhere. I've, however, found published articles criticizing your methodology. You are a fraud. Please admit defeat. Linguists aren't trying to hide anything. In fact, they would welcome such new information if it were true. There's a reason they've studied this for most of their lives. You are simply an amateur researcher with complete disregard for the scientific method. According to your dating, one of the translated runes shouldn't have existed. There's a reason no other evidence has been found. Believe what you will, but there's a reason no real academic takes you seriously. Or maybe your show is just a joke. If so, nice one!

  22. Mr. Anonymous,

    It makes perfect sense to me, and I'm surprised you have no interest in Mr. Nielsen's eggregious behavior with the academic peer review process. Surely you see the serious problem here, yet it doesn't seem to interest you at all?

    Why is that?

  23. By your own admission Nielson's work has not been peer-reviewed. How then can you argue that the peer-review process resulted in unwarranted criticism of your work by a Nielson fan? The fact that one follower read Nielson's proposals doesn't in-and-of-itself qualify Nielson's work as having been peer-reviewed. Before we go any further with this conversation please consult the following link: I'm beginning to think you've been debating an issue you know nothing about.

    1. Mr Anonymous,

      With all due respect your questions have devolved into circular arguments that at this point are unproductive and frankly boring. I've explained the differences of academic and professional peer review repeatedly and now that you’ve resorted to insults we’re done.


  24. Further, if you're suggesting that Nielsen's work is worthless partially because it has not been peer-reviewed (you suggest he doesn't let anyone else look at it), then how do you expect anyone to accept your own non-peer-reviewed work?

  25. My geological work has been peer reviewed and they were featured in a Norwegian documentary on the KRS last spring. I'm sure you can find it if you want to.

    It's a fact that for the past five years Nielsen has refused to let anyone see the low-resolution 3D data.

  26. I can find no reference to "professional peer review" anywhere outside of your own comments here on this blog. There is ONE kind of accepted peer review and its used the world over, not just here in the states where your academic conspiracy exists. A "professional peer review" is an important sounding name for interoffice communication among you and your business partners.

    You are correct that this conversation has devolved into circular reasoning. I'm happy to let our respective comments stand on their own merits in order to let your readers decide who makes the most sense. Good day, sir.

  27. OK Mr. Peer Review,

    Are trying to suggest that because you can't find a reference to professional peer review that somehow there is no peer review performed in the professional fields of geology and engineering? Surely you can't be serious? Of course you're not...

  28. Scott, We would like to invite you on our radio program. We are huge advocates fir truth in media and truth in history. Please get a hold of me! We have some interesting guests and i would love to get you on air via skype for our show. We reach over 120 countries and we are based out of Milwaukee, WIsconsin. Please email me media or press contacts

    1. Kristan,

      Sorry for the late response as I have been traveling in Europe. I have sent you an email and would be happy to appear on your show.

  29. Scott,

    Sorry to tell you but according to Dr. Bruce Smith the Bat Creek Stone is only being lent to Cherokee for a temporary exhibit and not permanently returned. He did mention that the Smithsonian position is that the Bat Creek Stone is a fake but the Smithsonian wish to keep it to use as an example of how and what possible frauds could look like. Dr. Smith said that the Smithsonian never was going to permanently release the stone and has not idea where that idea came from.

    So I guess this whole thing is not really a thing. According to Dr. Smith it has long been the position of the Smithsonian that the Bat Creek Stone is a fraud and they are not releasing the stone just lending it our for exhibit.

    So just like the peer reviews being discussed once a little research is done it turns out it all is really nothing.

    Oh yeah I read your stuff about your partner and then read his stuff about you and well you both seem to be very hostile to each other, to the point where it is hard to determine who is telling the truth. If you wouldn't mind since the peer review has been done as you claim please tell us the name of the peer review journals that the KRS and BCS investigation where published in?

    1. Michael,
      Stay tuned on the Bat Creek Stone situation. I have to say that you academic types sure know how to compartmentalize subject matter. On one hand you obsess about what you consider to be the only accepted process of peer review, and you’re wrong of course, while on the other hand completely ignore glaring serious issues regarding the handling of this artifact by the Smithsonian and certain scholars.
      Why haven’t any of you addressed the Smithsonian’s credibility problem, and the nonsense put forward trying to defend them by academics such as Mainfort and Kwas? They seem to think they can discredit the authenticity of the artifact without realizing they’ve thrown the entire mound survey project into jeopardy. They also have no regard for the reputation of John Emmert and ‘make stuff up’ in a desperate attempt to make the artifact go away. Frankly, it’s pathetic and needs to be addressed.
      Do you not find it interesting the Bat Creek artifacts were no big deal for 80 years when they thought it was Cherokee script until Cyrus Gordon correctly pronounced the inscription to be ancient Hebrew in 1970? Instead of our nation’s museum taking the objective and scientific position like, “This is interesting, we need to investigate this further”, they instead immediately proclaim and continue to claim it was a hoax.
      Does this not bother any of you? It seems you are so Hell bent on attacking the reputation and work of anyone who dares to counter your “beliefs” regarding this stone. I can guarantee you this, the truth always bubbles to the surface and it’s happening now in this case too.

    2. Again, Scott, you're avoiding the point made by "Micheal February 11, 2014 at 6:12 AM". And that point is....the whole point of your post is that through your actions the Smithsonian has returned the Bat Creek Stone to the Cherokee. A quick phone call to the Smithsonian refutes this. The Bat Creek Stone is on LOAN to the Cherokee, and is still considered permanent property of the Smithsonian. Your original comments to the contrary are either uneducated or intentionally misleading. Care to publish a retraction? If not, I hope your followers understand that a failure to do so might call into question what else you might be being misleading about.

      Since you insist that your work on the KRS and Bat Creek Stone has been peer reviewed could you direct me to what journals I can find those articles in? I would be interested in PUBLISHED opinions of your work on these artifacts provided by other geologists.

    3. "However, let's wait and see what happens."

      I'm wondering how long we should wait before you are comfortable printing a retraction. You claimed that the Smithsonian has turned ownership of the Bat Creek Stone over to the Cherokee. Further, you insinuated that your actions were instrumental in its return. A phone call to the Smithsonian refutes your claim. Frankly, I'm troubled that a top-notch truth seeker such as yourself wouldn't have made that phone call before publishing such a misleading blog entry.

    4. Do you think your phone call to the Smithsonian matters in the least in this situation? There will be no retraction of anything and I think you know full well why I say that. However, this is not the approprite time or the place to discuss this situation.

      Why insult me and the readers of this blog by calling me "top-notch truth seeker" when you have nothing but contempt for what I do?

      In case you haven't figured it out yet; it's time for you to move on to another topic or another blog site.

    5. I'm sure your quick call to the Smithsonian got the answer you were looking for. However, let's wait and see what happens.

      I have answered the peer review questions repeatedly for over a week now. It seems to me that by asking the same question over and over, you somehow expect me to give a different answer. I think there is a name for this kind of behavior…

    6. Quit dancing and put up your peer-reviewed articles please.

  30. I'm suggesting that the REAL peer-review process is standard practice among true researchers/scientists, and that a REAL peer-review is much more than having a geologist and friend from the same firm in the office across the hall from yours gloss over your work. You are comparing apples to oranges. Seriously, you're trying to argue that a Big Mac is as good if not better than Prime Rib prepared by a professional chef.

    Again....this is no knock against your work on dating the KRS. I have no way of knowing if it is valid or not, so I am not judging. I am simply telling you that if your work rises to the standard you claim then you should want to publish this new dating procedure in an industry journal. If after a true peer review it is deemed by your colleagues throughout the world that you have discovered something new then you may change he way geology and archaeology are practiced going forward. What better honor?

    1. Anonymous,

      Despite your repeated pleas about what is REAL peer review, finding the truth always boils down to the facts. In my business the facts always win out over unsupported opinion which I continue seeing in these posts. It’s as if there is a collective attack mode in an effort to defend the “Bat Creek Stone is a hoax” position of the Smithsonian and many scholars?

      Give it up guys; this one got away and try as you might, you can’t change the truth this time.

    2. That's a fairly egotistical response don't you think, Wolter? Because educated people respond to your public blog in an effort to clarify some of the more confusing points of your "scientific" claims suddenly this has become evidence of a Smithsonian conspiracy against you?

      No conspiracy here. Rather, a significant number of people just think you're wrong about a lot of things. You seem to be confused as to what a peer review is. You also seem not to realize that you can't use questionable evidence that has not been vetted to prove an even more questionable hypothesis. I can't use the story of Hansel and Gretal as evidence for the existence of magical, child-eating, woods-dwelling witches until I first prove that the story of Hansel and Gretal is true.

      You keep saying that our history books are wrong. Then you insinuate that they are wrong because of a conspiratorial choice to push an agenda. Our history books probably ARE wrong. Not because of an agenda, but because we don't know EVERYTHING about history. And, it would be irresponsible to teach our children one person's ideas as fact based on nothing more than that person's word. What you were taught in school probably varies greatly from what children are being taught today. As new information is verified it is included into the mainstream history books. Take the Vikings for example. It is accepted by the mainstream that they came to North America circa 1000. Why? Because independently verifiable proof was discovered. "Vikings in America" is no longer controversial The problem is that your claims cannot be verified by anyone or anything outside of Scott Wolter. All of your evidence/claims are based on your own personal, subjective interpretation. Now you will point to the existence of the American runestones, the Newport Tower, etc., but until the true origins of these things can be verified by someone other than just Scott Wolter you're not getting in to the history books, and thank God for that. Otherwise, where do we draw the line? Should Alan Butler's time-traveling moon builders be included, too? I'm sure in his mind he has just as much proof as you have of you Templar story.

    3. Isn't it time you put an end to this charade? Your insincere line of questioning and baseless accusations are a waste of the reader's time. It's the elitist academic attitude you present that is one of the reasons for the twisted history we now have.

      Either change your attitude or go lodge your complaints somewhere else.

    4. Wolters Lies for MoneyFebruary 15, 2014 at 12:16 PM

      What a pathetic response to valid criticism.

      Stop pretending to be a "forensic geologist."

      You're nothing more than a guy who inspects concrete cores for construction crews.

    5. You might want to check your facts before posting next time. Just because you didn't get the response you wanted is no reason to hurl insults.

  31. I understand the importance of having Peer review with your Peer's however I see it as an excuse to challenge your intelligence when you are developing new technology. Scott has made it very clear that the weathering on the KRS shows an age of at least 200 years from it's time of discovery. If you are to peer review a Geologist and his method of in this case measuring the age of stone carving you should at least understand the process. If you are not qualified to Peer review a Geologist and wish to challenge his findings then you must show a process that supports or does not support his field of study. I so happen to agree with Scott on the age of the KRS because of the existence and depth of a mechanical wear line below the runic letters. I do not have a lot of letters in front of my engineering degree, however I have over 45 years of experience reading a depth gage and comparing this depth to 60 tomb stones.

    1. Using surface mica presence or absence to date a stone like the KRS would be an invalid criteria to use unless of course you were able to definitively account for any and all chemicals used on the KRS since its discovery. I believe accounting for all chemicals used on the KRS over the course of the last 120 years is next to impossible. The stone has been washed for display, bathed in various chemicals several times for different castings by different people using different processes, packed for over seas shipping, etc. and no inventory has ever been kept as to chemical contact. Mica is not the most durable of minerals.

      If you refute my statement please explain why and refrain from using any of the tricks you usually resort to when trying to avoid answering (i.e. calling people "silly" and the such).

    2. Actually, your question is a good one. The simple answer is the bottom of the grooves that Olof Ohman scratched with the nail serve as excellent control areas where the freshly exposed micas are still intact. If the chemicals had removed the micas, which I doubt knowing that most were either plaster, epoxy release agents or ether, they would certainly have impacted the exposed micas still present in the scratches.

      Ease up on the sarcasm and stop being silly and you won't be called out.

    3. Please do not take offense at the questions I am about to raise. I do not do so out of disrespect. Instead, I ask because I personally want to understand more about the mechanics of your geological KRS study. I think I understand what you're premise...mica is not a very durable mineral. It is fairly easily dissolved compared to other minerals on the surface of the KRS. So, in theory, the age of the KRS should be able to be determined by how much mica is present on the surface of the stone. The more mica there is, the younger the quarrying and the carving. The less mica, the older the quarrying and carving. Further, if mica presence is reduced you can make an educated guess on an age by comparing the mica amounts with other similar stones that have a known and documented age. This all seems simple and straightforward, and I can see the logic behind it. My questions are......when you measured the mica amounts present on the surface of the KRS did you also factor in the acidity of the soil in which it was found? You compared the KRS to exposed tombstones, but the confirmed history of the KRS tells us that it was buried and unexposed for some amount of time. It seems like in a certain way you compared apples to oranges. Did you also perform a control study on the surface of the tombstones below grade? Am I looking at this incorrectly?

    4. Anonymous,

      No offense taken at all. Your questions are good, but you're little off on the mica part. I did not quantify the amount of mica that weathered from the various surfaces of the KRS, I did a relative-age comparison of how long it took for the top layer of mica to mechanically (through repeated freeze-thaw and wetting and drying cycles in the near surface environment) come off the surface of the tombstones both at, and just below grade. That process took 197 plus or minus 5 years.

      On the surface of the original inscription of the KRS (not the scratched-out portion of the runes or the glacial surfaces), all the mica had weathered away since it was carved. My conclusion was the weathering of the KRS inscription must be older than 200 years.

      I did take into consideration the pH of the soil the KRS was found in. At the discovery site on Rune Stone Hill the soil is comprised of a limey glacial till that is slightly alkaline of neutral. The soil in the Hallowell Cemetery where the tombstone samples were collected is on the acidic side of neutral, likely due to local acid rain conditions from coal-powered trains that for two centuries have traveled within feet of the cemetery.

      If anything, my weathering estimate of "greater than 200 years" is conservative. Remember, that’s 200 years from the day it came out of the ground and it hasn't been in a weathering environment since. This makes a late 19th century hoax impossible. The only thing left as logic demands, is the KRS is genuine.

    5. Hi Scott:

      This is the same Anonymous that posted on February 20, 2014 at 11:41 AM with a follow-up question. Did your study show that the mica had weathered uniformly on each surface of the KRS, or were there variances on the different surfaces? I am aware of a study that suggests that mica weathers faster on the tops of tombstones than on the sides of tombstones. Which surfaces of the control tombstones did you measure? If the mica had weathered virtually uniformly on all surfaces of the KRS then an artificial weathering process of some kind (hoax, chemical bathing, molding, etc.) may be indicated making it extremely hard if not impossible to make an educated guess on the KRS's real age. Again, I'm not trying to suggest you are wrong, I just want more information before I can make up my own mind.

    6. First, sorry for the late response. We were shooting in Europe for 9 days and I got behind.

      The relative-age weathering study revealed that all surficial mica had weathered away on the man-made surfaces exposing the mostly quartz and feldspar minerals present when the mica had been removed. There was no way to determine rates of weathering since all the previous surficial mica were gone in the areas of the stone tested. Since it took approximately 200 years to remove the surficial mica on the tombstones at, and up to a few inches below grade, I concluded the complete removal of surficial micas on the man-made surfaces had to have taken longer. Approximately 500-plus years is consistent with the weathering observed on the KRS.

      While I sincerely appreciate it, you don't have to apologize for being persistent in making sure you understand the work I did.

  32. William and all,

    There is no physical evidence of mechanical wear line on the Kensington Rune Stone.

    1. Are you outing "Anonymous February 11, 2014 at 11:58 AM" as someone named William? If a contributor wants to post anonymously on your blog I think it's pretty unethical of you to provide their name. Poor form, Wolter.

  33. Last I checked there is more than one person in the world named William with access to the Internet. You have no idea who this person is, so there is nothing unethical about it.

    At least William has the guts to use his own name.

  34. You know you're on to something good when so many blatant haters come out of the wood work! Can't wait until tonight's new episode, living in the South and all.

  35. Wolters Lies for MoneyFebruary 15, 2014 at 12:14 PM

    Scott Wolters you are a contemptible lying fraud-peddler.

  36. It's hateful comments like this that inspire me and let me know we're making headway.

  37. Hey Scott, don't worry the haters. Keep researching for the truth. Hopefully you get a 3rd season to explore. Consequently, it will keep the "HATER" blog alive a little longer...

    1. Yes, Scott....keep researching for the TRUTH and put all this Templar garbage behind you.

    2. In the end, the criticism just fuels the fire and gets more people to watch the show and all of us here appreciate that.

  38. Scott's comment...."It's hateful comments like this that inspire me and let me know we're making headway."


    I bet there is a serial killer sitting in prison right now thinking "The fact that I've earned a life sentence let's me know what I did was right!"

  39. Ha ha! The Templar mapping and other activities of North, South, and Central America is hardly "garbage", but you are welcome to your opinion. How do you think the Church and the Spanish learned about all the gold and silver in Gulf of Mexico region?

    1. "Ha ha! The Templar mapping and other activities of North, South, and Central America is hardly 'garbage'"....

      Now you're claiming the Templars were active in South America, too? Wow!! Was there nothing these people didn't do or know? Kind of hard to believe that this group of holy bloodline protectors were active all over the western hemisphere a hundred years before Columbus was even born. Especially when you take into account that the ONLY place the Hooked X can be found is on three North American runestones NONE of which were known prior to modern times (1898 for the earliest and within the last 40 years for the latest two).

      If you could get just one more credible geologist to recreate your work on dating the KRS then maybe the rest of this wouldn't seem like such a fantasy. Why won't you do that? I'll tell you why....because if you made any mistakes in dating the KRS then your ENTIRE Templar story crumbles.

      Are our history books wrong? Probably, but no where near as wrong as your historical Templar fantasy.

      Keep up the good fight!

  40. Anonymous,

    Both the readers of this blog and me would appreciate if you did some research before posting silly comments. I would start with my latest book, Akhenaten to the Founding Fathers: The Mysteries of the Hooked X. I would also read my KRS Book and The Hooked X.

    In these books you will read about my peer reviewed (by three PhD's and three PE's and PG's) geological weathering study and about geologist Newton H. Winchell's geological weathering study where he concluded the KRS was genuine.

    You will also read about the details, and supporting documents, about my Templar research. I'm sure you'll appreciate that there are footnotes and references in these books too.

    Once you've done some of your own research, come back and make more informed posts. OK?

  41. Templar Mapping--
    In my opinion -- The Templars, 1362 people of the KRS, and Columbus worked off Maps created by Earlier Explorers. The Templars wouldn't claim land in the name of a King or Queen-- because the Order was Persecuted by Kings. The Physical Paper (Vellum ) Maps will probably never be found - in my opinion they probably left clues of their Mapping, Explorations and Land Claims in another Form - so far the KRS is only a Memorial Stone left to their dead fellow Travelers -AVM- only time will tell? P@

  42. Pasadena,

    You are quite right the Templars followed in the footsteps of world travelers before them as evidenced by the Tucson Lead Artifacts and the Bat Creek Stone to name just two.

    Vellum Templar maps certainly do exist, scholars just haven't had access to them for obvious reasons. Stay tuned; more is sure to come out in the near future.

  43. Hi, Scott, I look forward to your series episodes. I was fascinated with your
    recent show about Lincoln and the KGC. Here in Austin, Texas there was one
    of the largest KGC treasuries. It was downtown near the the state capitol. Many have tried to find its location, but the best accounts say the treasury was moved before Reconstruction came to Austin. There may be a treasury in South
    Texas near or on the King Ranch. Captain Richard King was first a gun and
    supplies runner for the South, prior to his establishing the Ranch. But it would be
    hard to get permission to check that out.

  44. Hi Chuck,

    Glad you're enjoying the show. That the KGC keep their stashes of cash moving makes a lot of sense, perhaps even to this day. This "keeping things moving" strategy reminds me of the Knights Templar who did the same thing when they brought tangible "treasure" (likely gold, silver, scrolls with ancient knowledge of science, technology, architecture, etc., important human remains...) to North America prior to Columbus. I think there was something at Oak Island in the past, but it was almost certainly moved centuries ago as agents of the Church and Royal monarchies followed them to the New World. I'd love to proven wrong by the guys that dug there recently, but I'm pretty sure they moved it inland long ago.

    1. They moved it, but not inland, I will show you where they moved it to this coming summer!

  45. Hi Scott,
    I love your show and I am no expert. I must say since I was a child I challenged the idea that we were taught in school about ancient people crossing oceans. Keep up the great work.

    1. Glad you enjoy the show and I most certainly will keep at it.

  46. Have any idea when there be new shows of america unearthed.

  47. Hi Jon,

    Season 3 should start sometime around October. I'm not sure of the schedule yet, but I am sure the few we've filmed so far are some of the best yet.

  48. The curse of oak island will be better this year too, i've heard!

    1. Like I've said before, I hope the brothers prove me wrong. Wouldn't that be amazing...

  49. Keep up the good fight Scott!

    In addition to your "Menehune" episode, northern Queensland in Australia has/had about 12 tribes of Aboriginal pygmies(I only found out about recently). Who possibly came down from Papua New Guinea which is part of the Pacific Island chain. No know stone work though, but could be relative of Homo floresiensis.

    I would like to see more about giants of America.

    To you and the team great work on the show.


  50. Dave,

    My understanding is there are some amazing carved Aboriginal star maps in Australia. Maybe we'll get to see them some day?

    We are hoping to do another episode on giants in the future; if we get renewed. Our fingers are crossed!

  51. Scott Wolter, I'm surprised you don't know that America was discovered by African pygmies, all of whom were named Barack. In fact, you can trace your own lineage to the exact same tribe who crossed the ocean by surfboard.

  52. Boy, that really furthered the discussion. Thanks for that...

  53. I think this "peer review" stuff is for the academic world. This is where "professionals" do their best to destroy someone else's work. I'm not impressed. Academics have a built-in distain for scientists as far as I can see. Finally, for all the noise that's out there, these academics and their supports have something right in hand. ----- they can do their OWN research on the artifact but instead they run to the library and quote a thousand other sources. WHAT happened to doing your own research on the artifact. The Smithsonian and their friends have all the money to do "ORIGINAL" research - but they don't. I think its "fear".

  54. And as far as the "city of gold" the Spanish were looking for --- oh, yea, they knew all about it and I bet the gold is still out there. Ever hear of the "Superstition Mountains". I bet you have and I wonder how they got that name??????

  55. the Spanish were looking for the gold. They knew it was out there. Ever hear of the Superstition Mountains. I bet you have. Wonder how it got that name.

    1. Dave,

      All I can say about your post is "Stay tuned."

  56. Hi Scott,
    I enjoyed the show about the Bat Creek Stone. You know there are millions of Americans that already believe in a pre-Columbian Jewish presence in the Americas and that they left a record behind. It's called the Book of Mormon.



  57. As a degreed archaeologist I love all the emphasis on "peer review." where was the peer review of the works of sir founders Perrier or James breasted? Yet not ONE egyptologist questions ANY of their work. Conclusions perhaps work no. This "peer review" is a modern academic methodology. In the past peer review was you published, held seminars and invited other experts to question or examine your finds.Again until very recently THAT was "peer review" AND the standard for science. Modern peer reveiew is actually less scientific as lots of research is shot down before publication because the established expert who reviewed it held a contrary positon.
    One example no research was published questioning the Minoans relationship to Greece while Arthur Evans was. Alive. Any research which differed from his opposition was "peer reviewed" to non publication. And typically the detriment if not end of the researchers career.
    Sorry but the old method is more scientific. Publish, hold seminars, invite others to examine your wor

  58. Annonymous feb 10 talks about science and facts but makes statements such as Wolters peer review was simply having it looked at by "unquestioning audience of work colleges and friends." Where is ANY proof, or HINT of evidence that these work colleagues and friends are "unquestioning?" My work friends are FAR from unquestioning. They are honest and questioning. Please provide PROOF, of the same caliber you are demanding or retract that statement. No talking around it. You either have PROOF his colleagues are unquestioning or your statement needs to be withdrawn. Or you prove you care nothing of truth or science.

    1. David,

      I can tell you this, my former professors who reviewed my work on the geology of the Kensington Rune Stone (they weren't the only geologists to review the work BTW) understood the controversy and what was at stake. They still are my good friends and will always be mentors and I can guarantee you they were just as critical of my work than anyone else if not more because they didn't want me to be embarrassed. They asked tough questions and I answered them.

      In the cases where my professional colleagues reviewed my testing and conclusions for various investigations, including the work we did on the Pentagon, the scrutiny was just as rigorous.

      The bottom line is I would be happy to testify and answer to scrutiny to any of the work I've done, especially my research on the Kensington Rune Stone, the Bat Creek Stone, etc. In fact, I'd love to have that opportunity in a mock trial with any and all opponents who would care to testify against me. Even better to have it in a public forum

  59. Micheal on Feb 11 the misstated the basis of scientific evidence and court rooms. True sometimes judges and juries disregard science. Sometimes bad science is allowed in. The appeals courts deal with these issues.
    The reality is for evidence to be allowed in court the science of it must be the accepted and approved standard in that field. This goes FAR beyond peer review in reliability. Further any faked evidence or claim that evidence is standard when its not is subject to finds and jail time. Peer reviewed gets unpublished or if faked and published the person faces at most ridicule. Sorry that's hardly a more rigerius test of truth!

    1. David and the two Anonymous,

      These comments on peer review are good, but we have to remember that peer review is an important part of scientific methodology. However, to say the academic way through the consensus of opinion is the "only way" is flat-out wrong. I just commented to a post by a member of law enforcement who said how important testifying to evidence in a court of law is when a person's freedom or life is at stake. It really does makes academic peer review pale in comparison.

      The bar I have to meet when I present my evidence is just as high whether I’m testifying about a catastrophic failure or the Kensington Rune Stone, yet for critics it means nothing when my conclusions clash with their beliefs about history. The truth is there is more going on here than simply trying to get the right answer. Problems of the human condition have polluted the academic process and failed miserably in cases involving the pre-Columbian history of North America.

      I've said it many times now, the truth always bubbles to the surface and it will in this arena too.

    2. I agree peer review is important, but as I pointed out in one post in anthropology 101 they state unequivocally that peer review was used to SQUASH any research that disagreed with the top expert of the time. Arthur Evans and Margret Meed being the most noteworthy examples. When used right its a great tool. When used wrongly it supresses the truth in favor of the status quo.
      PS David bell and anonymous speaking on peer review are one and the same. I wasn't sure about stating my name at first seeing all the attacks, but decided I stand behind what I say so why hide my name?

    3. David,

      I respect the fact you are putting your name behind your words. What good are they if you don't. I can tell you the personal attacks are like gnats that are certainly annoying, but have no teeth without facts to back them. The skeptics go on the offensive hoping their opponents will back down. I have allowed them to post here, let them rant, and when they are done with the insults and accusations I have tried to answer the legitimate questions honestly.

      Some have put aside the nastiness and engaged in civil discourse while I'm sure others became annoyed they didn't get the response they wanted and moved on.

      Your points about peer review are important enough that when I get a minute I'm going to write a separate blog to address the important points you've brought up. Give me a couple days, and welcome to the light my friend. I think you'll like better out here.

  60. Peer reviewed papers in the 1800's stated piltdown man was clear proof of the missing link and was accepted as such by the entire anthroplogical community. Peer reviewed papers in 20's state it was an extremely clever forgery. Peer reviewed papers now state it was a clumsy and obvious fake that the anthropological community never trusted. Clearly the latest peer revised paper is a lie. But its peer reviewed so it must be trustworthy right?
    Anthropology 101 classes all teach that (to use two examples of many) any publication during the time of Arthur Evans or Margaret Meed that disagreed with their theories was unpublishable. You could have science of the highest level but the peer review system squashed it and it was unpublished. Again this is not my theory its the accepted historical truth taught in basic anthropology 101 classes.
    So how reliable is peer review if it questions the status quo? Anthropology 101 says very UNRELIABLE.

  61. To what purpose do you believe hebrews came to america?

    1. I don't know for sure, but since Hebrews have been under nearly constant persecution for most of their existence, North America appears to have been a sanctuary of sorts. A place where they knew they would be relatively safe. If so, this tells us something about how early Natives likely treated visitors from across the oceans. The Bat Creek Stone story may shed some light on that since it could be a mixed burial of Hebrew and Native people.

      We may never know for sure, but maybe someday the Smithsonian will find the jawbones John Emmert collected from the skeleton with the artifact budle under the skull in 1889 the Institution now says it can't find.


  62. History at one time in this nation was open, honest, and readily available to anyone who wanted to draw their own conclusions and gleen from history its true value...however it has become suppressed, distorted, and available only after a few ideologically motivated organizations have placed their own interprative fingerprint on it...history in the hands and minds of these who are empowered by laws of intimidation they and their own have passed becomes a tool to bring ignorance and unwitting ideological disciples within the masses of people...this is the smithsonian...motivated by philosophical greed and religous fervor they and others of their kind have tainted pure history including archeological history...understand the greatest downfall of any civilization is enduced ignorance...I wish the smithsonian and others would reveal what belief system is pulling their pseudo scientific puppet strings...a possible cover up of diabolical acts of treason that were purported against humanity in America by their ideological kind...cortez and columbus being a few examples...while they do not attack the body anymore because that creates heros and questions but instead they attack the soul of a person by instilling ignorance and fear...this is a far more damnable act against humanity...

    1. Wow; that's some heavy stuff, and it happens to be right on the money. I totally agree the Smithsonian has and is being driven religious and political motives to cover up the truth. The Bat Creek Stone is one that got away from them and these most recent official statements by the Institution are a desperate attempt to try and put the “toothpaste of truth back into the tube.” It’s too late for that now.

      These proclamations are laughable and absurd and we need to hold them accountable. I am certain it’s just the tip of the iceberg of lies they are desperately holding onto.

      It's people like the "debunkers" who use clever deception and the age-old tactics of avoiding talking about the facts and obfuscate the truth by attacking the character, credentials, and credibility of those who dare to ask questions. I believe they are part of the cover-up and while likely being paid to do the dirty work for those who want to keep the truth hidden.

      It's up to us to decide if we want the truth. We have to speak up and demand it.

  63. Check this link out
    This is about coffins found in 1892 In Alabama that the bodies had massive skulls and the Smithsonian lost the coffins!! From- Cherokee Alabama girl

  64. This wouldn't happen to be the Alabama Cherokee girl who I spent a day with in Kentucky recently is it?

    Anyway, thank you for the tip. This is yet another interesting story about giants that I've heard about multiple times from Natives from many tribes.

  65. Yes it's Becca my mom said we need to find a way to get you to film in Bama haha

  66. Becca,

    I had a wonderful time with you and Besty; thanks for hanging out with old rockhound!

    1. Hey Scott, This is Alabama Cherokee Girl's Mom. I think I have figured out what the petroglyphs are saying : Running Turkey loves Talking Doe. HaHa ! I also wanted to let you know that I found the area of Redbird's final resting site. I searched the river banks for hours until I ran out of daylight. I will go back this summer and I will find this site. I will get back to you on this. I had a wonderful time in KY. Y'all made me feel real comfortable. It was fun and informative. Tell the crew thanks and to look me up if they are ever in Denver. Thanks for introducing me to Leslie ! Betsy

    2. Hey Scott, This is Alabama Cherokee Girl's Mom. I think I figured out what the petroglyphs are saying : Running Turkey loves Talking Doe. HAHA !
      I wanted to let you know I found the area of RedBird's final resting place. The people would only give me a clue. I searched the river banks for hours until I ran out of daylight. I'm going back and I will find the site to pay my respect to my g-g-g-grandfather. I will keep you up to date on this journey. Please tell the crew I had a wonderful time. It was fun and informative. Y'all made me feel real comfortable. Thanks ! Tell the crew to look me up if they are ever in Denver. Again,thanks for the wonderful time. Betsy

    3. Hi Betsy,

      So you went back and found more? Excellent; if you found Red Bird's final resting place is it marked?

      Glad you enjoyed being a guest on the show; you were relaxed and did a great job. I'm sure we'll be in Denver sooner than later. Thank you again for being such a great guest; I had fun too!

  67. I didn't find it yet. The man I talked to said he played on RedBird's grave as a child. He said it is a well guarded secret of the Cherokee. National Forest tries to keep people out. He did tell me that the site was 3 miles from where I was standing, along the river bank. So I went 3 miles in every direction, on every river and creek around there. I walked the creek banks until I ran out of daylight. I went to talk to the man 3 different times. He just wouldn't tell me the exact location. I will be back to KY and I will find the site. Maybe I need to bring Becca with me to work her charms. Betsy

  68. Betsy,

    I have no doubt you will find it, but if you do, please keep it hidden to only those worthy of knowing. My concern is there are people who will desecrate like they have the cave we went to with the carvings. I won't be telling anyone where it is that's for sure.

    1. Yes,I will find it ! I will only tell my family. I believe we have a right to know since we are kinfolk. They will be sworn to secrecy. They will keep it secret. I believe they are afraid of me. HaHa I'll keep in touch. You do the same. Happy Adventures !

  69. Hello Scott, I just watched the episode about the Ark. You compared the alleged Stone of Destiny to sandstone from Israel. I have no expertise at all in this area but I would suggest testing sandstone from the Sinai region or even Egypt. You may find a match or at an approximate comparison. Your show is interesting..too much evidence that what we were taught needs to be revised. There is simply too much evidence to just scoff it all away. Thx..Diane in Canada.

  70. Hi Diane,

    I'd love to follow up with testing different sandstones from the Middle East. The problem is getting the samples collected while being here in the States. I'm hoping to visit Jerusalem in the near future and if so, you know I'll have plenty of sample bags with me!

  71. My thanks to Scott Wolter and all the people who care and love this country and our history, and wish to investigate and find the truth.

    I feel so bad for our children and future generations, and hope the greed, ignorance, and incompetence of our pathetic government organizations and representative leaders can be stopped and corrected some day.


    1. Pat,

      While I appreciate your kind words, I do not believe all is lost. I think we will get the truth out, but we need everyone's help. In spite of all the problems we have with government and corporate greed, the process in America still works when people get involved.

      If enough people speak up, change can happen and truth will come out. We simply have to demand it!

  72. Nobody here is hating on you. We're asking a very simple thing. All we want is some proof. Simply link us to your peer-reviewed articles or post them. I myself am working on a PhD and feel that you have hardly been presented a daunting task.The bare bones of what you do sounds very exciting. Just, please, fulfill our request. It would shut us up. I would think that would work in both of our favors. Thanks.

    1. Anonymous, or do you have a name?

      I am sincerely happy you are working toward your PhD, but if you are here to try and lecture me about the peer review process you can save your breath. The academic process you are apparently being indoctrinated into is essentially the consensus of opinion. In other words, your colleagues sit around and talk about it until they agree (which rarely happens and nothing is decided). In the Humanities disciplines especially, with questions like the authenticity of the KRS, Tucson Lead Artifacts, the Bat Creek Stone, The Spirit Pond Rune Stones, and the Newport Tower to name a few, the “academic” peer review process has failed miserably.

      As a licensed professional, the professional peer review process requires that I am able to testify to my findings in a court of law under oath. Does a tenured professor have the same accountability? My research has been both professionally and academically (in the case of my geological work on the Kensington Rune Stone) peer reviewed and is published for you and all the world to review in my papers and books. If you want to discuss my findings in detail, ask me specific questions and I’ll answer them.

      Otherwise, please pack up the attitude and go back to your studies.

  73. In the interest of honestly and fair play, I am posting another critical, and very confusing commentary from yet another "Anonymous" person since I'm having trouble getting it posted; here is their post:

    "I cannot find any peer-reviewed work of yours anywhere. I've, however, found published articles criticizing your methodology. You are a fraud. Please admit defeat. Linguists aren't trying to hide anything. In fact, they would welcome such new information if it were true. There's a reason they've studied this for most of their lives. You are simply an amateur researcher with complete disregard for the scientific method. According to your dating, one of the translated runes shouldn't have existed. There's a reason no other evidence has been found. Believe what you will, but there's a reason no real academic takes you seriously. Or maybe your show is just a joke. If so, nice one!"

    So, because the articles critical of my work are published that makes then legitimate, but my published work is not? Isn’t that a bit of a double standard? In the case of the Kensington Rune Stone, the linguists haven’t a clue what they are dealing with. For over a hundred years they have been trying to make the KRS inscription fit into their box of knowledge instead of going into the investigation with an open mind and let the inscription tell them what it is. That is the first principal of the scientific method. Linguists and other Humanities disciplines don’t receive formal training in the scientific method and it shows. Unfortunately, my experience with these scholars has shown they are too arrogant to admit they made a mistake. This is why we are still trying to figure out what the KRS is 116 years later.

    My dating work demonstrated the weathering of the inscription, which includes ALL the runes, is older than 200 years from the date it was pulled from the ground since it wasn't been in a weathering environment since. Can I ask what rune you are talking about so I can help you better understand what you are trying to criticize me about? What are you talking about with regard to other evidence; be specific? Of course the Humanities academics criticize me because we've repeatedly pointed out their errors and they're pissed about it.

    You my friend, exhibit the same arrogant attitude as all the other academics I’ve dealt with. Your mind is already closed, so you might as well move on to something else because in this arena you will get nowhere.

  74. Here is yet another post from likely the same Anonymous. But then who cares what someone who is afraid to write their name think anyways?

    "Quit dancing and put up your peer-reviewed articles please."

    This comment doesn't merit a response. Besides, I was actually a pretty good dancer in my day?

  75. I really think the "academics" really do spend too much time reading their "own" peer- reviews. I would really think they should spend some time in a lab with scientists that are forced to deal with hard numbers.

    The whole argument with the academics on the KStone is "he did it". But when faced with the facts the KStone runes were "unknown" to the "professions" who offer up opinions, they bail, they attack credentials, etc etc. I would like this anonymous contributor to answer the question as to why his arrogance refuses to accept the FACT the "hooked X" is already on the Templar temples in Gotland.

    I find it just amazing that these "professionals" absolutely REFUSE to do their own "ORIGINAL" work. They have the KStone -- go for it. The whole history of the stone is known. Put up or shutup. Why is it they refuse to do their OWN research. They run to the library and drag out books that support them and then come up with an "average". This contributor wants to "educate" my kids with "averages". NOT.

  76. notice how the "anonymous" people when confronted with "facts" -- bail

    <<<<"First the items found in the mound were copper........."

    they were not "copper" and he knew it -- therefore his position in this "debate" has been compromised. All I'm left with is an internet posting and this guy is "defending" the "historians".

    <<<"The bracelets are not copper, they both brass comprised of roughly 2/3 copper, 1/3 zinc, and approximately 3% lead.">>>>>

    This is a FACT. If he wants to prove this wrong, anonymous has the option of getting his own "smelting engineers" and "metalologists" to provide a "second" engineering report. They have the artifact -- why can't they just do their own "original" research --- have at it.

    1. I'll be back from a long filming schedule very soon and will answer any missed questions / comments. Thanks.

  77. Scott, I have read your entire blog, seen some of your episodes and done my own scientific research. I think those that passionately criticize you and passionately defend you so much should follow in your footsteps before declaring all your work as fraudulent or legit.

    I think some of your conclusions could use more supporting data but other conclusions have overwhelming supporting data. I think your work and your show is absolutely fantastic. It forces us to think about our history, have spirited debates and continuously re-examine what are viewed as historical facts.

    I had an idea for a show that I think myself and many fans would love to see. It would be awesome if one show in the upcoming season you were able to visit Rick & Marty Lagina of Oak Island and review their finding from a forensic geology perspective?

    Regards, Andy Bay - Michigan

    1. I'll be back from a long filming schedule very soon and will answer any missed questions / comments. Thanks.