Wednesday, March 5, 2014

America Unearthed Notes on The Spearhead Conspiracy

First, let me apologize for getting behind in the blog.  I just returned from nine days of filming in Europe for season 3 and had limited access to email.  However, it was an incredible trip!  Can't go into details as I'm sure you understand, but I will say what we have filmed so far will become some of our best episodes so far.

The final episode of Season 2 was really a good one and has generated a lot of buzz.  Kennewick Man having distinctly Polynesian features and not typical Native American features is sure to complicate the debate.  The Burke Museum should stop trying to hide the skeleton and allow qualified researchers to examine it properly and let the chips (data) fall where they may.  If I've learned anything from the investigations we've conducted this season it's the peopling of the America's is much more complicated than the "Bering Strait Land Bridge" migration from Asia theory.  Some scholars are still adhering to it in spite of ever-mounting evidence to the contrary.  I'm guessing it'll get more complicated in the future as more evidence is discovered and researched.  Stay tuned.

The crazy events that unfolded in the days leading up to my interview with Bryan Axtell and Trevor Carter were bizarre, but not out of character for a government agency.  The hypocrisy of the whole sting operation to get the obsidian point back is alarming.  We need to remember Trevor and his friends tried to get officials at the Park Service interested in the days shortly after they discovered the point.  The Park Service expressed no interest until less than a week before filming the interview when its importance was suddenly elevated to the point where a sting operation was deemed necessary.  The Park Service has since issued a blow-off response to the multiple requests by media outlets for more information about the artifact:

"Thank you for your inquiry about the America Unearthed episode that included Haleakala National Park.

Haleakala NP is part of the national park system and there are a number of laws that protect natural and cultural resources in these parks for the benefit of future generations. If resources are taken from a park then it is hard to understand the context of their natural or cultural history or how to best protect them.

One of these laws is the Archaeological Resource Protection Act (APRA), which mandates us to "secure, for the present and future benefit of the American people, the protection of archaeological resources and sites which are on public lands and Indian lands..."

Under this law it is illegal to damage, deface, remove, or excavate archaeological resources. We regularly work with researchers to set up ways that they can research objects while still meeting the requirements of this law.

There is an ongoing criminal investigation. As part of that case, the object you referenced was seized as evidence. Tests and analysis of this object are also part of the investigation. There is no typical time frame for how long an investigation lasts. The time frame varies on a case by case basis.

Polly"

--
Polly Angelakis
Chief of Interpretation & Education

Ms. Angelakis referring to this matter as criminal investigation is a joke since she is well aware of the hiker's attempts to contact authorities about their discovery nearly four years ago.

In the final scene where I was standing in front of the 3D printer flanked by Dr's. Jim Chatters and Duane Storti I was reminded that not all scholars are the narrow thinking, close-minded people who have let us all down when it comes to the unknown history of this continent.  Surely more of the historical truth would have been revealed by now if those doing the work were as thorough, professional, and open-minded as Jim and Duane.  The academic world and the American public need more like them.


Duane Storti and Jim Chatters watch as Scott reacts with shock a split second after accidentally crushing the just finished 3D printer-made skull of Kennewick Man.


Will Thomas Stands near the site where he found Kennewick Man.


Bryan Axtell, Scott, and Trevor Carter pose after riding the zip line.


Chumash Shaman with Scott on the Beach in Santa Barbara.







71 comments:

  1. Wow!!!! So excited to know there will be a season 3!!!!!. My husband & I just discovered your show this season & are fascinated, addicted & love every amazing story & discovery!!!. We have watched every single episode from seasons 1 & 2 and cannot wait until season 3 finally premieres!!!. We love your show & no matter what controversies, haters & judgement makers are trying to tear you down, we will always be followers & have the utmost respect for all that you do to bring the truth to the forefront, where it should be!!!. Thank you Scott & maybe someday we will be blessed enough to meet you!!!.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Devanie,

    I'm glad we're getting another season too; there is so much more to investigate that we've really only scratched the surface. I am inspired by the doubters and haters to press on with even more resolve. If we were so off base, wouldn't they leave us alone to chase after such foolishness? They know we're onto them and one thing you'll learn quickly about me, I never quit when I know I have the factual evidence as support.

    It is an honor and a privilege to be part of something that's bigger than myself. I take this responsibility seriously and try to do the best I can to conduct intelligent scientific investigations while still making entertaining television.

    So far, I think we've done a pretty good job.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Scott, well done on the Polynesia and Kennewick episode. One thing you have neglected however, are the political ramifications to First Nation peoples if it should be proven that contact with Europe and/or other areas of the world occured. While I agree with your comments in previous episodes that people could have arrived in North America from Europe more than 25,000 years ago, the ramifications of the last 500 years of European expansion and the destruction of First Nations peoples makes it politically incorrect to admit to that possibility. In addition, for Kennewick Man, you should be looking at why there was court case to allow examination of the remains, and what the Corp of Engineers did to the site where the remains were found.

      Delete
  3. For some reason these lines from a very popular movie seem to fit Scott Wolter's research and his love/hate following as the movie has a love/hate following. I just had to post this.

    Enlightened guy: "It's you, I can't be it's really you."
    Main character: "Some reason what I was doing seemed to make sense to people." Enlightened guy: "It's like an alarm went off in my head you know, I said, here's a guy that's got his act together, here's somebody who has it all figured out, here's somebody who has got the answers, I'll follow you any where Mr..."

    ReplyDelete
  4. Obviously I didn't see the movie; care to share?

    ReplyDelete
  5. No problem Scott, glad you're back. I love this movie: Forrest Gump...really need to watch the movie with quality surround sound to get the full effect. Here is a youtube link of the part I'm talking about. It's starts at minute 3:33 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QgnJ8GpsBG8.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I know this comment will never be published, your site has a huge reputation about only seeking positive and complimentary replies. But a true investigator puts up hypotheses for people to argue, that's the nature of science. True investigators WELCOME counter arguments in the hope that they may prove their hypotheses, so why are you scared of others offering alternative views, to your alternative views. You cannot always be right, nobody is, so open the debate like a true academic and supposed scholar. Why fear an open debate?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Colin,

      Let me start by giving you a few facts. First, every single comment I have received on this blog has been published, even the nasty worthless ones that don’t deserve to be. Second, not one word has been modified or removed, including the F-word. Third, I welcome and will respond to any legitimate criticism or critique of my work. Fourth, you are absolutely right that I am not always right. However, what I will not tolerate is blatant, dishonest "debunking" that devolves into disrespectful personal attacks and name-calling. There are other sites that do exactly that without acknowledging legitimate facts, sound interpretations and conclusions they refuse to accept simply because they "believe" in something else.

      While admittedly, in the last couple of weeks I've fallen a little behind since I was traveling in Europe for the show, I will answer all comments that merit a response.

      Afraid? Bring it pal.


      Delete
    2. I hate intellectual dishonesty,especially coming from individuals who pretend to act as "critical & rational thinkers"."Going after" Scott Wolter is legitimate,but you better do your basic home work (in layman`s terms,read previous comments & reactions from readers).As one of Scott Wolter "most vocal opponents",I categorically refute your accusation.Mr Wolter never prevented me or anyone else from raising specific issues on his very blog.Indolence is always counterproductive.....

      Delete
  7. Any Comment about how you producers held facts from you about he course of events surrounding the spearhead.

    http://mauifeed.com/headline/is-the-spearpoint-trevor-carter-and-bryan-axtell-found-in-haleakala-national-park-evidence-that-pre-contact-hawaiians-visited-south-america/

    ReplyDelete
  8. Michael,

    I have no problem with what happened that day since they wanted to get my genuine reaction. What difference does a few hours make? Brian embellished my angry response a little bit, but I was genuinely pissed at the Park Service and still am. Why the B.S. sting operation to get the spear point back? Why the idiotic blow-off response to inquiries from the Park Service?

    People have contacted me claiming the spear point is a hoax, without any facts of course. It might be a hoax, but it might not be. If not, it's a priceless, history-changing artifact and based on the clandestine events that took place, I suspect the Park Service believes it is.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Fair enough Scott, I am glad your are being reasonable about it.

      I know that for myself I would be upset, just as I would of never miss-defined the term archeo-astronemy, or proceed with a whole episode on a rock wall I knew to be natural when I first saw it, or have claimed that no one knew about a conspiracy to assassinate Lincoln when historically one was proven and the co-conspirators were hung for it, or for spend so much time debating the semantically use of term peer review.

      I personally would think that presenting things in the most truthful manner and being as informed as possible about whatever subject or artifact is being explored would be of the utmost importance. I understand that this is a TV show and TV shows have certain approaches to create drama that will help the viewer be more drawn in. I was just hoping that the subject and exploration of the subject would be more important than making "good" TV.

      As I have said before I do believe that there are many things that we can learn and should be corrected about American history and I really want this show to succeed in doing that. I think the quest and exploration of the facts and historical precedent as to why they have been distorted or incorrectly recorded has enough drama that could create "good" TV.

      And please don't take this as criticism of what you are doing rather it is a criticism of how what you are doing is being presented. I hope you at least give a little thought about this and maybe in your meeting and planning sessions with your producers you can figure out a way to better present and research the evidence that is being brought forward on the show.

      On a side note a great miss recording of history is the Battle of Bladensburg in the war of 1812, most of the historical records and history book say the American troops fled the British in a disorganized manner which led to the British seizing the city of DC and burning large parts of it down. In fact the well trained American Troops did not engage the British and sat on a large hill nearby watching the local militia engage the British and decided that they did not what to engage and turned around and headed down Georgetown Pike back to the barracks, If they had chosen to engage the British most likely would not of been able to seize the city.

      It is stories like this and other I hope you would explore and find the truth of. There are so many. Anyway I hope you give what I said some thought. I think at times you are on to something but either the lack of true research or poor presentation really hurts your theories. I hate seeing the show being considered on the same level as Ancient Aliens, Monster Quest, and Ghost Hunters. There is more to this and I think you can uncover things. A good example of what I am talking about was last week presentation of the new Universe episodes dealing with Ancient Mysteries. If your show operated on that level of honestly I think you will find the "academics" and other more open to your ideas and theories.

      Delete
    2. Michael,

      Your comments are duly noted and taken in the spirit I believe they are intended. What I can tell you is there are a lot people who work very hard to get the facts straight including myself. This might sound like an excuse, but I also have my laboratory responsibilities, clients to deal with, reports to wrote, etc., that take away from the time I'd rather spend on research. When the show ends I'll be going back to my other job.

      On the other hand, I like going into filming some episodes with little or no prior knowledge and let things unfold naturally with no preconceived ideas. Some topics I already know a great deal about, others essentially nothing. Our show is like anything else, it's an evolving process of learning what works and what doesn't. We are far from perfect, but we are always trying to find a balance between sound scientific investigations and entertainment. Television is a business and if the ratings aren't there we're done. Period.

      My experience with many academics has been disappointing to say the least. A good example is some guy named Bryant Lister, err, "Dr. Bryant Lister" as he constantly reminds me whose arrogance, criticism and personal attacks are so extreme he has appointed himself to denigrate me personally and my work, apparently to save the world from my evil. He is the prototypical example of the academic mentality that created this historical mess in the first place. Just pull up his reviews of my books (The Hooked X and Akhenaten to the Founding Fathers) and the America Unearthed Season 1 DVD on Amazon for examples. He posted all three scathing reviews within a few days. Does he really think we believe he read my books and watched all 13 episodes within that time? According to him, there is nothing of value at all in my research primarily because I only have a lowly bachelor’s degree.

      Lister refuses to acknowledge legitimate factual evidence because ‘he’ is the ultimate authority and since he has decided the KRS is fake, there can’t be evidence to the contrary. He’s not the only one either. How are we supposed to get anything accomplished when this type of attitude has polluted the academic process?

      You get the point.

      Delete
    3. Scott I am sorry your have people you feel who are going out of their way to be detractors. I really cannot say more than that for they exist and always will exist. Just be grateful you have not directed a movie about a comic book character or are a performer like Miley Cyrus.

      The only thing I would say is the US vs THEM attitude seems never to go anywhere. If you believe the facts stand up let them stand up. Spread them out, share them with all the academic communities and scientists, let them duplicate all the findings the facts will speak for themselves. If they disagree simple represent the facts and discuss them. If the facts do not hold up to this scrutiny than perhaps they should be reanimated until a conclusion can be met and agreed upon.

      If your critics are taking personal jabs at you be the better man. I would say that by not interacting with academics and claiming conspiracies against you personally or the artifacts you present could hinder your progress and in fact make people take you less seriously. Look at Richard Hoagland, he has become a joke even in the UFO community and has almost lost all his credibility. Sometimes it is better just to be a bigger person, if you believe you facts stick by them, find positive ways to promote them without stepping on others toes, invite others from within academia to be part of the process and who knows maybe something can change.

      Delete
    4. Michael,

      There is no need for sympathy, the detractors are simply wasting everybody's time, including their own, by denying and delaying the inevitable. Sooner or later the truth always bubbles to the surface and it will in the appropriate cases here to.

      My work is published in my papers and books and I welcome any and all comments, critique, and criticism as I always have. Years ago I participated on a blog site called, sciarchaeology (I think that was it) shortly after I did my tombstone weathering work on the KRS. At first it was interesting, but it soon turned ugly and unproductive. Not because anyone was offering meaningful critique, it was simply Lister-like academics attacking everything except the facts.

      I am confident the facts that me and others, whose shoulders I'm standing on who came before me, such as Professor Newton H. Winchell, have generated will stand up to legitimate scrutiny. However, I'm done wasting time with academic's who offer nothing but more crap.

      Delete
  9. Scott.
    The Scott Wolter versus the debunkers issue is turning into a manhunt.I want no part of it.I am dissociating myself from any further public debate.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Ms. Peel,

    I appreciate your genuine integrity, but since I don't engage anyone other than on this blog site and my Twitter account, what happens elsewhere is irrelevant. On other blog sites I have been personally and professionally attacked, my credentials mocked and criticized, and have been called every nastic thing you can imagine. It doesn't bother me in the least. I played four years of college football and four years of semi-pro ball and have been physically and verbally assaulted in ways that makes the Internet criticism laughable.

    When the critics decide to stop with the nonsense and want to engage in a serious, legitimate discussion of the facts, I’ll be right here. I’ve said it numerous times before and I’ll say it again, the Kensington Rune Stone, the Spirit Pond Rune Stones, the Bat Creek Stone, the Tucson Lead Artifacts, and the Newport Tower are 100% genuine pre-Columbian artifacts based on voluminous factual evidence from multiple disciplines. There are many others out there that likely are genuine, but do not have enough factual evidence to draw a definitive conclusion IMHO.

    There’s are plenty of hoaxes and modern stuff out there too BTW…

    ReplyDelete
  11. Geez, my Forrest Gump post seemed to come to fruition. Nice! and well we all know the other have of the binary.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Now I have to go watch the movie again...

    ReplyDelete
  13. Scott.
    Nature behaves erratically.Gentleman Colin Hunt,is now accusing me of being in cahoots with you.Having privileged access to your blog (the authority over what is publish or not,I am not making this up....),I am supposedly working on your behalf, to discredit & confuse debunkers.Apparently some individuals have difficulty understanding my position towards you (critical but fair enough to give you credit for what you do right).Honestly I couldn't care less about the opinion of someone toiling in obscurity,but since I am posting under my real name,would you be kind enough to respond with a brief public clarification?.
    Thank you.
    Tara Jordan.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Tara,

    I didn't realize you were also Ms. Peel? In any case, I don't play the type of games you are apparently being accused of. As I said specifically to Colin earlier in this thread, I have posted every comment I've received including the ones that didn't deserve to be.

    Based on the commentary I've received from a few individuals and having spent a very brief time over a year ago on another “debunking” blog, I suspect the chatter has spiraled into unproductive negativity that has turned you off. If people are accusing you and I of collusion that reeks of desperation. I treat my critics the same way I treat my fans unless they become rude and abusive. I’m happy to answer any valid questions or criticism and don’t have any problem with sarcasm; especially if its clever. Because I tried to answer your specific questions in a civil manner here, that may have been misinterpreted elsewhere.

    Anyone and everyone is welcome. All I ask is to please not embarrass yourself posting “stupid stuff.” Only family and friends get favoritism from me, except on this blog…

    ReplyDelete
  15. As someone who has been critical of you in the past Scott. I think for the most part you have been beyond fair and very open, a little stubborn but you certainly are not hiding anything.

    Not the my opinion matters that much in this but I just wanted to throw that out there for Mr. Hunt.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Michael,

    I think what’s happened here is the other blog site came out after our first show with a clear-cut agenda to try to debunk anything and everything we investigated along with trying to discredit me. It's a free country, but you'd think people would have other things to do with their time unless they were being paid. Beyond that, I believe the blatant negativity veiled as objective criticism has caused a lot of damage.

    Instead, important historical artifacts and sites that demand further investigation by intelligent and objective individuals, regardless if they are academics or professionals, have been dismissed. In an ideal world, the two could find a way to work together to take advantage of the merits of both. Instead, the discussion ends up in witch hunts, personal attacks, etc. I'm guilty of getting caught up in at times too.

    I honestly believe academics could learn from my thirty years of performing thousands of forensic investigations. If there's one thing I understand it’s material forensics having testified under oath dozens of times. I know what factual evidence is and what isn't. One of the things many people don't understand is if there is voluminous factual evidence, from multiple disciplines, that all are consistent and support a particular conclusion, how can there be factual evidence to the contrary? It simply can't exist.

    In the case of the Kensington Rune Stone, the factual evidence is consistent and conclusive with it being a genuine medieval artifact. I've worked on this stone for 14 years and I’m still waiting for the first piece of factual evidence, not rumor, not hearsay, not unfounded speculation, but hard factual evidence consistent with it being a hoax. I'll be waiting a long time because the artifact is obviously genuine. That a fugitive faction of the Templar’s carved and buried it is my speculation, but I think I have enough evidence to support that as well.

    I’m sure some are reading this and saying, “Then why have so many scholar’s said it’s a hoax, why are you so special?” I’m not special, but I can explain why they got it wrong. In some cases, it was academic arrogance, but for the most part the information simply wasn’t available. Once a precedence was set, there were only a select few who dared step out of line. The KRS is a classic case of a perfect storm of mistakes that has led to the denial of what will eventually become one of the most important artifacts in the history of this country. I could teach a college course on it that would interesting as Hell.

    Of course, I’d have to have a PhD wouldn’t I? Oh well, it fun while it lasted…

    ReplyDelete
  17. "The KRS is a classic case of a perfect storm of mistakes that has led to the denial of what will eventually become one of the most important artifacts in the history of this country."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This is a great line. I wish I thought of it!

      Delete
  18. It's never too late to right a wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Kensington Rune Stone: your proof is geological in that you compared the mica content of the KRS to a few old gravestones in Maine. And you noticed a slight hook in the top of an X inscription. Your conclusion in that the Vikings came to Minnesota in 1362, and the Knights Templar came to Minnesota on or before 1362. I did not know that making a huge archaeological discovery was that simple --- merely compare "mica" content, and focus on a tiny glitch in the top of one letter in the inscriptions. That is the sum total of your huge mega archaeological discovery/conclusion that the Vikings were in Minnesota in 1362. It had no idea that making a huge archaeological discovery was that simple. On a website I noticed a replica of KRS in your lab. It would be satisfying to know for the rest of your life that your KRS archaeological discovery was correct. Sweet dreams ....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous,

      I have never concluded the Vikings came to Minnesota. Where did that comment come from? Further, that a fugitive party of Knights Templar came to what is now Minnesota is not an archaeological discovery, it is an historical one.

      Your sarcastic post and attempt to belittle my research is lame pal. Apparently, you have never read the book I co-authored that is 574 pages. The work we did to compile voluminous factual evidence from multiple disciplines that are consistent with authenticity was hardly easy. It took five years of intense research in the laboratory, at the Minnesota Historical Society and other historical societies, five trips to Sweden to investigate the language, runes, dialect, grammar, dating and history, and to go through all of the Ohman Family documents. The nine years since we have added much new data that is consistent with authentic.

      Why are you so disappointed? Is it because you one of the dishonest and/or incompetent academics who “believe” the KRS is a hoax without one single shred of factual evidence? If so, shame on you. If not, then you need to stop typing and start reading.

      Delete
  20. Over the past week 2 sets of human bones were found on the bank of Columbia River near Crescent Bar. Due to a crack in Wanapum Dam they have lowered the water level to deal with the problem, which has exposed the remains and some other interesting things. Grant Count Coroner is currently dealing with it. The info so far is they are old.....just old or really old? Just a heads up, it might be early settler....or another Kennewick man. I believe the Kennewick man has been locked up tight to keep us from proving it is not a Native American....before they do the same with these do some digging!

    ReplyDelete
  21. I did not hear about this, but it is exciting news!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I assumed with the success of your show, more things like this would be brought to your attention as time goes by. I believe you're right, the country is filled with clues from the past. I'm glad people now have somewhere to go with their findings, and not have them dumped off the back of a ship into the Atlantic.

      Delete
    2. Troutman,

      We have received thousands of good tips from viewers including several we've followed up on. I've heard the "dumped off the back of a ship story" too, but I want to know what is hidden in the bowels of the Smithsonian Institution.

      Remember the end of "Raiders of the Lost Ark" when the crated up Ark disappeared into a sea of crates never to see the light of day again? I have no doubt there is a lot of truth there.

      Delete
    3. I think the remains are of interest because Crescent Bar is in Washington up river from Kennewick. With the Dam draw down, the lower water level (dropped 26 feet) has exposed some interesting history. The tops of buildings from the town Old Vantage are visible. Artifacts and cultural sites are visible on the shoreline....if you can get to the shoreline. Due to "public safety" all the water access sites are Closed....Of course, they emphasized removal of artifacts is illegal in the same article. But, this is an opportunity that may not happen again anytime soon. Had someone not been looking on the shore, the remains would not have been found. By the amount of police patrols on the shore right now, it feels like Area 51, no joke. No access allowed.
      Before the Dams flooded the areas here, artifacts were collected. They sit in a room at Wanapum Dam, that the Dam workers don't have access to. The Wanapum tribe on the rivers edge next to the Dam holds the key. After the airing of your episode of the Kennewick man I began to wonder what proof that room could be hiding. The truth that the Native Americans weren't 'here' first is a fact. So can we quit paying them???
      If I hear anything interesting about the remains I will post it.

      Delete
  22. Scott, I appreciate all the hard work you do and the evidence you back it up with keep up the good work.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Adam,

    I appreciate your kind words, but it's important to remember there are many other hard working and diligent researchers who have contributed a lot of good work that I've benefited from. People who understand that working together as a team produces results that far exceed what an individual can do alone in a relative vacuum.

    I get way more attention and credit than I deserve. It's important to know that I don't do this work alone.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Scott,

    I purchased The Hooked X several years ago which made me excited for America Unearthed. It's one of the few times I turn on the television and watch something with the whole family. As an armchair historian we always have great discussions afterwards.

    Despite all the hard work you and the crew put into the show I suspect it's very frustrating dealing with the producers and tight time schedules. Those who can't grasp that there is more to AE than 44 minutes is deliberately fooling themselves. The show is a good mix of entertainment, guests, technology and ideal for encouraging others to study history.

    Congrats on Season 3! If you ever decide to expand on the 'Phoenicians in America' there are a lot more clues to study in the Ohio River Valley. My family lives in Ohio so of course the episode on the Serpent Mound was our favorite. I enjoy Migration Studies, if you ever have a need for additional research, let me know.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Hey Kyle,

    Thanks, and your right-on about how there is a lot that goes into making the show. My number one goal is to hopefully, inspire people to want to learn more about the various topics we investgate. I know that once they begin to dig deeper, and DO NOT rely on ‘Wiki’ whose content is controlled by anti-diffusion editors, they will begin to see there is a lot more to our history than they imagined.

    Things will only change when enough people begin to speak up and demand the scholars that are holding us back, straighten up and fly right.

    ReplyDelete
  26. I watch every episode of America Unearthed and relish each and every one so please, good sir, keep on keepin' on! I am hopelessly hooked, much like the Hooked X.
    One question plagues me throughout each: "Why? Why should the accepted paradigm model of "history" and it's purveyors refuse to accept nor entertain that there could be something more (or less) than that which has long been deemed acceptable?" What is the alleged reasoning? Is there a single answer/explanation? Is it a case of monopolizing the "truth"? What would be the point of that rationale?
    Ok, so that's like five questions. But I digress as I am wont to do.
    You're doing the Lord's work, good sir.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Bunny,

    The answer to your question is complicated. However, one of the main reasons so many academics struggle is because they don't follow proper scientific method in their investigations. They think they understand it, but they really don't.

    They also fall victim to what I call, "Problems of the human condition." These problems include arrogance, runaway ego, protecting turf, threat of academic persecution, personal pique, jealousy, etc. It's been going on forever.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Honestly, I would have bet the whole farm on that being the explanation.

      As a young college student I had a curiously odd conversation with a stoic instructor and I have never forgotten it. The condensed version would read as this: "Dr. X, how on earth am I supposed to believe that the very existence of life itself can be proven by nothing more than a mathematical equation?" Dr. X slowly turned to me with an expression that can only be described as a look of abject horror. I was immediately galvanized and certain I had just committed a terrible transgression of some variety. He finally uttered, "Where did you come up with a question like that?" A rip in the space/time continuum had obviously ,never me. I soon realized that nothing but nothing outside of the accepted the established, and the lock step unquestioned entered into his realm of consideration. It was my turn to experience the abject horror. Eventually, my respect for his knowledge dwindled and I dropped his class, unable to get beyond the matter. I'm forced to wonder how many other bright, young minds are stifled into compliance with the generic accepted.

      Delete
    2. Anonymous,

      I've heard many stories from former students who changed majors when told they would never get a job, or be black-balled for even considering pursuing certain taboo diffusion topics like the Kensington Rune Stone, etc.

      It sounds incredible, but it's true. So many academics (certainly not all) have wallowed in their own self-importance for so long they apparently didn't realize their minds had clamped shut.

      Just this week, Scott Ashcroft, with the U.S. Forest Service, called every state and county authority, and members of the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, he could to try and stop our production company from getting a permit to film at the Judaculla Stone. He was unsuccessful, but this arrogant abuse of power is another example of what some academics will do to protect their sacred paradigms.

      Delete
    3. Was Mr. Ashcroft able to supply a definite reason for attempting to maintain the U. S. Forestry Service's sacred sanctimonious paradigm? What on earth does the Forestry Service give a rat's backside about here? I admit, the question was purely rhetorical, moving on lest I digress..
      I, too, am counted among those scared off their original major due to dark predictions of doom and being cast into outer darkness for "maverick thinking" Marine Biology out. Business in. It worked in my youth and accompanying lack of experience. Now? Fat chance. Not that there's much room in business for "mavericks" Unless, say, you're a Bernie Madoff type, but I digress, yet again.
      I am a firm believer that the history we've been taught is wrong. (I have long maintained that the only reason Columbus is credited with having discovered the New World, first is due strictly to "history being written by winners" as well as the vested financial interest that the Spanish monarchy had in same) Thank goodness there are those such as yourself, Mr. Wolter! Had I not succumbed to the dire predictions prophets of the blackball, I am confident that you would've found a professional kindred spirit in me
      Both my husband and I are solid supporters as well as admirers of your work. I'm pleased to know that the Forestry Service's effort proved unsuccessful

      Bunny T. posting as Anonymous due to my LiveJournal ID giving me fits.

      Delete
  28. Bunny,

    Mr. Ashcroft is like many academics who believe they are the only ones capable of studying certain aspects of history. I'm sure in his mind he thought he was doing the right thing, yet he never returned my phone call when I reached out to him to discuss his research and about being a guest on the show. Instead, before he bothered to gather information about our plans, he decided to go on a personal crusade to try and stop us.

    He claims our very first episode on the Maya-Georgia connection was "debunked", which is certainly has not, and spurred a large public interest in people wanting to visit the site. I understand the need to protect fragile sites, so why not open the site to the public on a limited basis? Eventually, interest will wane and this return to normal. The Forest Service's attempt to cover-up what is at the Track Rock site reeks of an agenda to, yet again, withhold the true history of this country.

    All I'm doing is asking the questions I think any informed member of the public sector would ask. This country and its history belongs to all of us, not a select few who chose to tell only what they want us to know.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Keep it up Scott! Don't let anyone get between you and your work! It's truly inspiring. I think they should be naming the history books after "Wolter" something similar to Webster's Dictionary! I got pumped up when I read a previous post about a 9 day trip filming for season 3 and that some of the unseen footage will be the best so far. Ur on the right track and any open minded human who's not brainwashed by politics and media can see that! There's going to be a time where you find something that is just gonna blow the age old lies out of the water and I can't wait to see it. I would love hearing even just the the smallest taste of anything from next season but I won't be upset if that simply isn't possible. You pretty much have to get on some of these investigations almost immediately and as discreetly as possible because it's really quite obvious and rather sad that certain "parties" would try to beat you to the punch and perhaps leak or leave behind disinformation just to be able to use it against you. Must be tough fighting a war on your own. Maybe a sidekick is in order? Haha Ur English friend is most certainly worthy! (I've nicknamed him megalithic ha! ) And as for the people who like to be negative and be simply annoying, I've got the perfect idea.... Don't Watch it. You will hear it soon enuff when the country is awakened! The only thing that bugged me on any of his episodes was not hiring a bunch of super repel-ists to repel down that canyon and show us some pyramids! Also one more small thing but I read once that there was a golden archive or library (somewhere in southern or maybe central America which would be a bitchin' episode! You should do a quick word search if you find it interesting) which was kept hidden much like burrows cave. The guy said the only entrance was under water. In the episode with borrows cave when you got to the end and mentioned that it's possible people could carve out little plateaus and hide artifacts under it I jumped up and reached for the phone screaming check for a swim in opening access tunnel lunder that water. If burrows really did hide the entrance maybe the water sat 10 feet or more below what it currently does. All you would have to do Is feed a seperate body of water to the existing Creek and voila. Water rises thus hiding your entrance... I dunno just a thought to keep in mind for further investigations. Keep it up tho Scott! Knock em dead!

    ReplyDelete
  30. and back to the KStone again. I seems after all of this, the doubters are still out there ignoring evidence and not addressing the whole picture. one of the issues with the "stone" was the "hooked X" which was "unknown" to the "rune" community of linguistics, etc etc etc. This is not true at all. They had complete knowledge of the "hooked X". It is not the fault of the "stone" or Scott that their research is, at best, faulty and at worst, they lied through their teeth.

    Why do I say this. If you had done your research, who would have found the "hooked X" stamped on an astrolabe in the London Museum (I believe), on most of the Templar churches on the island of Gotland, and its even in the Rosslyn Chapel.

    You can tell the people who chime in but haven't read on book about it. Maybe a good start would be "The Hooked X". ---- smiles

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dave,

      Let me make sure we have the facts straight. First, the scholars certainly knew of the Hooked X for over a century since, as you correctly state, it was clearly used on the KRS 22 times. The issue is they had never seen an "X"-like character used for the "a" sound in a Scandinavian runic inscription, or any runic inscription, before. Where they made their mistake is arrogantly claiming that since they had never seen it before that it must never have existed. The Larsson Papers found in Sweden in 2004 proved they were wrong, yet not one scholar has stepped up to admit it.

      I have since found several examples of the Hooked X in Europe, all associated with either modern Freemasonry or the medieval Knights Templar. This association is not a coincidence. There are several more I have yet to reveal until properly vetted.

      The astrolabe you reference has an "arced X" which is even rarer than the Hooked X and proves definitively the Spirit Pond Rune Stones, (all three also have numerous Hooked X's) are genuine as well.

      I agree the critics haven't done their homework, but even if they read The Hooked X, they are so firmly entrenched in their "beliefs" it would likely not make much of a difference. They need to have open minds and the debunkers have shown no evidence they are capable of that.

      Delete
  31. I should have added also, studying the "Cistercians" and the "Easter Calendar" would be really important.

    As an added jab at the "noise makers". Notice how NOT ONE OF THEM mentions them or the calendar. Nor do them even mention "Paul Knutson in 1354". Failure to follow this is a sure sign of a troll and his activities (trolling). they are no interest. --

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dave,

      What I have seen on other sites is simply a "debunking" mentality, not a serious discussion. I've been on such sites years ago and the people I interacted with were rude, condescending, and refused to acknowledge basic points of fact that didn't suite their predetermined conclusion.

      Who wants to waste time with people like that?

      Delete
  32. Hi Scott,

    Great show and great season. I love the range of topics you guys covered and the fact that your research keeps an open mind.

    Is it just me, or are the wanna-be academics getting worried? Has someone invaded their sandbox, stollen their sacred microphone?

    I'm very much looking forward to the next season.

    Steve St. Clair

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Steve,

      I do think certain academics are getting worried that in spite of their repeated objections, they simply do not have the evidence to refute things like the Kensington Rune Stone (KRS), Bat Creek Stone, Tucson Lead Artifacts, the Newport Tower and others that are clearly genuine and add massive new chapters to American and World history.

      I've recently been having a private exchange with a person who claims to be an academic, but sure doesn't act like one. He refuses to answer specific detailed questions about my KRS work and would rather insult me instead.

      This is a common occurrence because as I've said many times, there is no factual evidence that proves these artifacts are hoaxes. It's been nothing but a smear campaign that sadly, continues to this day.

      We are currently filming Season 3 and I honestly believe these are the best investigations we've done yet. It should be a fantastic season of shows!

      Delete
  33. hi im Mario, i was sekking for gold then i found some bird stones, where can i send pics....need help. mariohernandez29@hotmail.com

    ReplyDelete
  34. Wait, wait, wait. So you crushed the 3D replica skull of the Kennewick man. LOL Talk about an 'Oh s@#%'moment.
    Now to get seruous, I've read many of the academic 'nay-sayers' comments to your work. I am going on my 11th year as a police officer, and made my first successful federal drug case with less than 2 years of experience. The federal prosecutors and ATF officers were so impressed at the lengths I went to to preserve the integrity of my investigation that I was invited to work on many other federal drug cases in my jurisdiction. So when you reference your established integrity in a court of law, I truly understand the impact of that statement. That type of established integrity, in and of itself is a credential that holds a lot of weight in any kind of investigation. For those that aren't familiar, any investigation that you conduct that has evidence that has been tested and evaluated, according to
    the SCIENTIFIC METHOD, those results are proved or disproved by REPLICATION of the test which yields either the same or different results. I have yet to see anyone replicate your experiments to discover the results, which means their opinions are exacty that--just opinions which have no merit. Keep searching for the truth, Scott. Any person who refuses to believe that history can be changed should speak to someone who was imprisoned for a crime for decades only to be found innocent and set free because science was able to change history. As a police officers, I for one, welcome scientific advancements to establish facts in my cases, because I know that there will be an evaluation and re-evaluation of evidence by both the prosecution and defense, meaning science--not my professional OPINION--proves the guilt or innocence of a person. In summary, anyone who uses their credentials and not a replication of your experiments in any investigation is only establishing that they believe their own EGO is more reliable than scientific
    discovery...proving they have no clear understanding of the meaning of integrity!

    ReplyDelete
  35. Angie,

    Yes, in my haste to pick the replica up after the final scene I grabbed it in the thinnest part of the skull and "crack." Oh shit, was right!

    Anyway, I often use law enforcement investigation methods as an example of the proper use of scientific method. Investigators like you are required to properly collect, compile, interpret, and present the facts of your case in a court of law under oath in front of a judge, jury, or an arbitrator. I routinely do exactly this and you had better have a solid case or you’re going to look awfully silly. The stakes in your cases are much higher in most cases and I don't have to tell you that if there is a flaw in your case what the defense will do. The difference here is the "defense" or the naysayers can throw out anything they want to oppose something they don't like and often get away with it because of the lack of accountability.

    An individual's freedom is arguably more important than getting history right. I think we'd be a lot closer to the truth had the academics put their reputations, their evidence, and their integrity on the witness stand and see if it could withstand cross-examination.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Scott,

    I appreciate your response!

    I couldn't agree more, freedom is more important, so you really summed up my point in your reference to placing academics on a witness stand!

    In reference to the Kennewick Man, it makes absolutely no sense that the museum doesn't allow access to the remains for examination and evaluation. In 2012, the University of Richmond (where I received my undergrad), in Richmond, VA allowed a student access to their 7th century BCE Egyptian mummy for evaluation and study. This access was closely supervised, and rightly so, but is a wonderful example of how new research must be the standard when it comes to ancient artifacts and history! I realize that the Kennewick Man is significantly older; however, his remains survived, almost completely intact, in the elements of nature until 1996 AD. So their argument for refusing to allow trained professionals access to the remains in a controlled laboratory environment clearly has no merit.

    Have you studied what remains of the Piri Reis Map? Given the controversial detail of this map, although post-Columbian, I wondered if there was any evidence depicted on that map to support your other evidence of pre-Columbian discovery.

    Angie

    ReplyDelete
  37. Angie,

    Actually, I have seen the Piri Reis Map and you just might see it in an upcoming episode. For that reason I'll save my comments for a future post. I'm sure you understand.

    With regard to Kennewick Man, it seems the Burke Museum either doesn't want anyone to conduct DNA analysis on the remains, or they've already done it and don't want us to know the results. If they were clearly Native, wouldn't the remains have been returned for re-interment?

    ReplyDelete
  38. Piri Reis Map ---- if walls could talk. Does my heart good, Scott, that you are going after that one, also. Simply put, it shows things that were, supposedly, unknown at that time. In other words, the current story is ----- wrong.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dave,

      The current story is wrong and it would be nice if the problem academics would put aside their preconceived notions, open their minds and be part of the solution.

      Delete
  39. Scott (& Dave),

    I have been eagerly awaiting for the information to be released on the results of the DNA testing and subsequent facial reconstruction on the skull of the possible study for the Mona Lisa by Leonardo da Vinci. While reading some related articles, I came across this article from 2012:

    http://www.theartnewspaper.com/articles/Its-all-in-the-eyesand-the-lips/25700

    This is more proof that the history we are told is wrong! In this article, it is proven that a majority (not all) of 'academics' that dismissed an Italian Art Historian for more than 500 years were wrong. They assumed his descriptions were fabricated and unreliable, but here we are, 500 years later, learning that he got it right, and the skeptics were wrong because they didn't have all of the facts! Interesting read, for sure.

    Angie

    ReplyDelete
  40. Angie,

    The skeptics had is wrong because they didn't have all the facts??? It's amazing how sometimes off-the-cuff, flippant comments from people with perceived authority can do serious long-term damage that can take, in the case apparently, hundreds of years to correct.

    Thanks for sharing.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Hey Scott,
    I enjoyed the Grand Canyon episode, that story has fascinated me from the time I read of it many years ago. Now that drones have become relatively common, was any thought given to popping a camera-equipped drone down over the edge to have a look for the old cave entrance?
    I'm assuming with the bizarre FAA laws, even if the team were to find something you wouldn't be able to air it without risking prosecution for violating airspace, but it's a tempting thought.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Troutman,

    The drone idea has been brought up several times by viewers and is something we might pursue in the future if we could find the proper unit with enough range and of course, granted permission to use it!

    ReplyDelete
  43. Mr. Wolter,

    The Kennewick Man has recently resurfaced in the news as of late (pun intended.) What is your take on the DNA story that trended a few weeks ago? I find myself confused because one story lead me to believe the testing was done

    (http://www.iflscience.com/plants-and-animals/preliminary-results-suggest-kennewick-man-was-native-american)

    . . . while another story had me rethinking if a test had been done at all . . .

    (http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=98495&page=1). Please help give me some clarity on this, sir.

    Until The Whole World Hears,
    Pastor Mike

    ReplyDelete
  44. Mike,

    To be honest, I don't know what to think. I don't trust academia not to put in their dogmatic spin with Kennewick Man, and the Native American's have their own agenda that has to do with land and Casino rights from what I understand.

    I'd side with the natives if I had to choose, but I honestly don't know what to do in this situation. I do trust Jim Chatters and if says the features of the skeleton are not Native American and consistent with ancient Polynesians, they I say go with that.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Mr. Wolter,

    I looked a little further into this topic, especially Dr. Chatter's input on the issue. It so happens he was quoted in a Seattle newspaper just days ago. You may find it interesting what Dr. Chatters says in this article . . .

    http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2025488002_kennewickdnaxml.html

    Respectfully,
    Pastor Mike

    ReplyDelete
  46. Mr. Wolter,

    I found an article from May of last year describing the watershed moment for Dr. Chatters' change of mind on the ancestry of the Kennewick Man (http://www.yakimaherald.com/news/2182718-8/12000-year-old-skeleton-sheds-light-on-kennewick-man). It seems as if the skeleton in Mexico takes him off the hook (or at least gives him a way out) of his claim that Kennewick Man was probably not Native American. The first sentence in the article gave me the impression that Dr. Chatters had to go underground after he made his claim of KM's non-traditional heritage.

    It is my guess that there is much more to this story (Smithsonian, Dr. Stafford, Dr. Chatters, land and casino rights, etc.,) than what I am reading in a simple Google search. How about a follow-up episode or special on the Kennewick Man, sir?

    Respectfully,
    Pastor Mike

    ReplyDelete
  47. Scott-

    Looks like DNA proves Kennewick man is Native American, not Polynesian. Gotta love the reconstruction that looks like Patrick Stewart, too. Now what?

    ReplyDelete
  48. Mr. White,

    The DNA testing found a connection to the local Native American tribe which doesn't surprise me in the least. However, who's to say the local Natives don't have Polynesian DNA markers within them? This has been a highly charged political situation that certainly has more to the story. There's no way in the world that any Polynesian DNA connection within the Natives would be mentioned in this situation.

    I would wait until the raw DNA results are released until we draw any definitive conclusions.

    ReplyDelete
  49. scott my name is Paul I've been watching your shows on the the Sinclair family and the knights Templars, I've been doing research on my family and my genealogy. I have found out that I have Sinclairs in my family tree. I've actually gone back about 75 generations on ancestry.com. Actually bringing up my research of the my family Tree starting with myself, and it went to, starting with Janet Sinclair descendant of Henry Sinclair. Also as I Iearned by my research not only were the Sinclairs Knights Templars but they were also Teutonic Knights and at least one went on campaign with them. They were also lords of the Orkney Islands which belonged to the King of Norway. So could the Sinclairs have spoken and written, French, English, latin as well as (Gaelic Germanic, Slavic)?

    ReplyDelete
  50. Paul,

    I have no doubt members of the Sinclair/St. Clair clan could speak/write multiple languages or had people close to them who did. These people intermarried with Norse royalty in Sweden, Norway, and Denmark so they had access to the most powerful, influential, and educated people of their time.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Brettany,

      Those educated people were Cistercian monks who were the brightest of the brightest.

      Delete