Sunday, September 14, 2014

So what about that “Apparently Non-Existent” Honorary Master’s Degree?

Shortly after the premier of our show America Unearthed in December of 2012, an internet “debunker” wrote a blog intimating that I was falsely claiming I had received an Honorary Master’s Degree in Geology in 1987.  The blog was cleverly written so as to not outright assert I was misrepresenting my qualifications, but it certainly did give readers the impression I was somehow claiming to be somebody I wasn’t.

Unfortunately, this misleading post has made its way to the top position on Google when people search for my name looking for information about me.  Even though I responded to the post explaining how and why I received the degree, my response was at first left up on blog, but has since been removed thereby furthering the myth the blogger created.  Because I often receive sometimes nasty criticism generated by this particular blog post, I felt I should re-address the issue head-on in a blog post of my own.  While the debunker’s post falls just short of the bar necessary to initiate legal action, future events could change the current situation.

Another reason I felt compelled to address this subject, is that the person whose idea it was to recognize me way back then recently passed away.  Professor Emeritus, Charles L. “Charlie” Matsch, died suddenly on April 20th of this year at the age of 83.  I owe much of whatever success I’ve had in my career to Charlie who steered me toward geology when I was clueless freshman at the University of Minnesota at Duluth (UMD).

The late Professor Emeritus Dr. Charles L. Matsch and I pose for a photo after my lecture on Lake Superior agates at the University of Minnesota-Duluth in the spring of 1987.  Charlie and my other former professors gave me a “sympathy” Honorary Master’s for my 1986 book, The Lake Superior Agate.

In August of 1983, I completed my 6-week geology field camp classwork and was ready to begin my job search.  Charlie contacted me about interviewing for a position as a field geologist with a Mapco Minerals.  Due in part to Charlie’s recommendation I was hired.  It turned out the first project was in Northern Minnesota where I was hired to traverse and map the glacially scoured bedrock.   The job also required that I slog my way into a seemingly endless number of swamps to hand drill through the floating bogs up 30 feet down to the underlying bedrock to collect basal clay samples looking for gold.  It was a physically demanding job, but I was in good shape after four years of playing college football and I really enjoyed being in the woods.  After three months the Minnesota project ended and I was offered a full-time position that was to begin in January in Nevada.  I was excited to get my professional career going as were my parents, Barbara and Fred.

Upon returning home to the Twin Cities in November, my father, a pilot with Northwest Airlines for the past 25 years said, “You’re no longer a dependent, so you get one more pass to fly anywhere in the world so you better make it good.  Where do you want to go?”  With over a month before I started the next field assignment in Nevada; I was excited to take the trip of a lifetime.  One of my favorite hobbies was scuba diving and decided I wanted to go the Great Barrier Reef in Australia.  Being close to my father, I asked if he wanted to go with me.

Our plan was to be gone for three weeks and over the first eight days we were in Hawaii, Japan, and China before arriving in Cairns, Australia.  After hustling our way onto a boat and camping out the night before, we arrived on the dock the next morning for the three-hour trip to the Great Barrier Reef.  This was the moment we were waiting for and after the boat was anchored in a tidal channel on the reef, 25 or so snorkelers jumped into the water for a spear-fishing contest.  Once the snorkelers were clear, my father and I excitedly jumped in with our scuba tanks.  Within minutes of entering the water we became separated in the murky, sediment-filled water flowing out to sea with the tide.  After searching for several minutes, I grew annoyed wondering where he was and headed back to the boat.  As I climbed onto the boat, a few of the snorkelers were just setting him down after pulling him from the water.  I knew instantly that he was gone.  Exactly why my father, who was an experienced diver, died from saltwater drowning that day is still a mystery.

Needless-to-say both my family and my world changed forever.  After my return I was in no condition to take the job with Mapco and over the next two years I struggled trying to find my career and my confidence.  To help work through the grief and guilt, I spend countless hours in local gravel pits collecting agates, and my thoughts, trying to understand what had happened.  I immersed myself in everything agates and at one point was inspired to write a book about agates by my agate mentor, George Flaim of Duluth, Minnesota.  Thanks to George’s prodding I embraced the project and with the input of many people along way, including Charlie and my other UMD professors who reviewed my geological research on the various types, modes of formation, microscopic features, glacial distribution, and history of collecting Lake Superior agates, the book was published in the fall of 1986.

My agate mentor, George Flaim, and I posed for a photo while negotiating a deal in his basement in Duluth, Minnesota, sometime around 1990.

It was a proud and defining moment in my life which helped me move on emotionally from the tragedy with my pride and confidence restored.  The following spring, I was invited by the University to give a lecture at UMD about my agate research.  Janet joined me for the lecture and afterward my former professors peppered me with technical questions that I answered.  After the lecture they invited me to the professor’s lounge where Charlie announced the honorary degree complete with a whipped-cream topped cup of coffee.

The degree was certainly not officially recognized by the University, nor was it ever portrayed to be.  It was simply an acknowledgement that my professors were proud of me for fighting through a tough experience, producing something scholarly, while getting my life back on track.  I have always portrayed it as an honorary “sympathy” degree.  However, it was an honor I was proud of back then and am still proud of today.  The misleading blog post put my now elderly retired professors in an awkward position at being questioned about their kind gesture so many years ago.  To have this important moment portrayed as somehow dishonest to try and discredit me and my research, only serves as further motivation.

In the future I’m sure we will all look back and recall these “Wild West” days of the Internet.  I was prepared for the personal attacks and attempts to marginalize and dismiss my work on the controversial subject matter we investigate on the show and in real life.  People like this aren’t really interested in the truth; they are interested in turning the attention onto themselves so they can espouse their own personal “beliefs.”  In my view, the worst offender of bias and miss-information on the Internet is Wikipedia.  This on-line resource that so many people in the world rely upon simply cannot be trusted; especially when it comes to topics about archaeology and the controversial artifacts I had researched extensively, such as the Kensington Rune Stone, the Tucson Lead Artifacts, and that Bat Creek Stone.  They are portrayed as fakes in spite of the obvious and overwhelming factual evidence consistent with authenticity.  The world is being manipulated by “Wiki” on these topics and it needs to be stopped.

Shortly after the show premiered, bogus references casting my research in an unfounded negative light began to appear on my Wiki bio page.   I tried unsuccessfully to remove it only to have it reappear.  Eventually, I demanded they remove the bogus information or delete my bio completely.   I’d rather people not have a Wiki bio than to have one sentence in it that was false.  An infuriating and condescending week-long debate ensued among the Wiki reviewers and only after threatening legal action did they finally remove my bio completely.

The same situation is currently happening to a brilliant researcher and friend, Charles Pellegrino.  Charlie has also had his academic credentials questioned by Internet hackers who have posted false information on his Wiki bio page.  Charlie lost his cousin on 9-11 and along with other families who lost loved ones that day has endured harassment and threats by 9-11 “Truthers” whose motives are despicable, and who are openly in charge of his Wikipedia biography.   Charlie has also had research on the Titanic and the Talpiot Tomb unjustly criticized by those whose “beliefs” on these subjects are contrary to the factual evidence he and his colleagues have worked hard to document.  He has also reached the point of frustration and disgust that he has demanded to have his Wiki bio page removed permanently.

At the end of day, all this banter about scholarly degrees, peer review, academic journals, and fraudulent Wikipedia articles are nothing more than a smokescreen by skeptics and debunkers who offer no meaningful contributions, and try to control and cloud the discussion with misleading and mean-spirited deception and nonsense.  The bottom line is the soft-science academic “consensus of opinion” approach to history where there is little to no accountability has failed to find the truth.  It’s long past time we put aside the “Myth of Columbus” and defer to the facts.  Instead of the court of academic opinion, the factual evidence concerning our history should be considered in a court of law under oath by professionals who understand proper scientific method, ethical practices, and most importantly, accountability.              


  1. So, history should be argued in a court of law? Who, then, in your opinion would be qualified to argue such a case? Certainly not any of the academics you rail against. You would probably argue that the academics don't know enough about "hidden" history to set the narrative. Who does that leave? People like you? The Scott Wolter's of the world who keep telling the non-historians, and arm-chair H2 fans that a "Myth of Columbus" not only exists, but should be actively fought against? You would have a very hard time citing a single historical text written within the last 60 to 100 years that claims that Columbus was the first European to make it to the shores of America. The "Myth of Columbus" is something YOU perpetuate in an effort to make your fantasy Templar story seem more tantalizing. If you are suggesting that you would be among those qualified to argue true history in a court of law then do yourself a favor and read something other than your own books before you walk into the courtroom.

    I wonder if I'm the only one who finds it confusing that, according to this blog you just posted, you seem to adore the academics who mentored you in the field of Geology at UM-Duluth, but then in the next breath tell us that the academics have been lying to us about history. Your message seems mixed. If new information came forward in the field of Geology that your professors were not privy to in the past, that would make your own professors liars by your own definition.

    Further, I quote you from above..."The misleading blog post put my now elderly retired professors in an awkward position at being questioned about their kind gesture so many years ago." Be careful, every time you point the finger at someone else you have three more pointing back at you. It seems to me that YOU are the one who put your retired professors in an awkward position by presenting their act of respect and kindness as an official academic recognition endorsed by the university. How many "honorary degrees" would we all have if every time a professor told us we were doing good work we all went out an re-wrote our resumes? The bottom line is that you had to know this informal recognition given by your professors was NOT the same as a university sanctioned honorary degree, but you made the conscious decision to treat it like it was anyway. Before you deny it, consider that the alternative does not make you look much better. If you really were not smart enough to tell the difference about something simple like this, then how in the world are we to believe you when you try to re-write the history books of the world?

    Keep up the flawed work, Scott. It makes for great ENTERTAINMENT.

    1. Anon #1,

      If you had a legitimate argument based on facts & reality, you'd post under your real name rather than cowardly hiding behind a cloak of anonymity.

      I can't imagine why Scott even acknowledges such a gutless troll such as you, let alone that he even wastes bandwidth responding to your bilge.

      You add zero to this conversation, & the fact that you haven't the courage to put your name behind your baby-ish, whining drivel speaks volumes.

      Where is your research? What credentials, academic or otherwise, do you have? Failing that, where is even a scintilla of your historical opinions based on even dubious or better knowledge you may have gained somewhere?

      The answer is you clearly have none. If you did, you'd offer such & put your name to it.

      You are worthless. One can only hope you have one positive trait such as being biodegradable, so that when you die you shan't pollute the soil.

      Go away. Post your tripe on one of the brainless, anonymous, no-facts-required subs on Reddit or something. Avoid the subs which require substantiated evidence, and you'll find a place where you belong.

      You don't belong here.

      Hopefully, everybody here will route your nattering to the bit bucket, as I am doing now.

      -- Dan

    2. Dan and all,

      I don't mind criticism or complaints; especially if it's warranted which it sometimes is. However, blatant nasty comments simply to express unhappiness with inconvenient evidence or facts that stand in the way of "beliefs" don't contribute anything to the discussion.

      Let's keep it civil and productive; I don't mind having a little fun either. You guys should know what is and isn't appropriate. If you have to pause and think about something that might be inappropriate in a post, then you probably shouldn't write it.

    3. Scott, I do apologize for my tone, Scott. I can see now that it was a bit over the top. I regret how I said it, but I stand behind my thoughts on the matter.

      One other thought: Although the "Columbus Myth," as anon #1 used as misdirection, has in fact been debunked in higher academia, the myth persists. I history in both high school & junior high, & the texts state, to this very day, that Columbus "discovered" America. I do my best to tell my students a bit about reality. Just a bit these days, as I've been sternly instructed by school administrators that, Lance Aux be dammed, I must teach the "official, sanctioned version of the truth" even though it is not the truth.

      Such is life in public, government funded schools.

      Anyway, you are right to point out my posted blatant disrespect for anon #1. I shall maintain proper decorum in any future posts I might submit to your blog.

    4. Dan,

      Nobody gets more frustrated with hard core, close-minded skeptics than me, but getting under our skin is their goal. This is how they distract and undermine. We have to be smarter and keep them on task. You'll notice they only stick around as long as the negativity persists. As soon as we start discussing facts, the hard core, nasty ones disappear.

      One of our goals with the show is to present enough compelling evidence that enough everyday folks, and the media, speak out and ask questions, eventually the problem academics will come around and get it right.

    5. First off, "Doctor" Benjamin Franklin had honorary titles bestowed upon him, and he was no more a doctor than my Uncle Chuck. I'd take the cup of coffee any day. The story behind it would mean more than a sterile certificate from a university. Making a big deal of this is like saying that Christ was an amateur since he hadn't received ordination from an established church.

      Secondly, I'm glad that you have such a great following on your blog, Jason. I'm happy that you have such wonderful credentials. And I'm happy that you have the time to engage in cyber arguments regarding archaeological findings and pseudo science. But truth be told (and I'm not being facetious or nasty in any way) there's a part of me that wishes you would get out and make your own show. Come on, man. Step away from the computer, step out into the light, and go on a dig. You think that Mr. Wolter is spouting nonsense and junk science, prove it. Go to the very sites he's visited and dismiss them. Hop into a boat and head out to the Leif Ericsson stone and brave unexploded bombs to prove the stone is a hoax. Cruise on over to England and check out maps. Go to Oklahoma and chuckle at the hilariously crude Heavener inscription. Maybe go and examine the KRS and prove that there is no leeching or physical indication that roots were ever wrapped around it (or just expose the silly ruse by verifying that the runes were undoubtedly carved by Ohman). You know? What's the point of placing credentials on the wall of your bedroom whilst frittering away the hours blogging and trying to discredit someone else's work? I just don't see the appeal in that.

      So, come on, chief. This is your day! Get out there and show the world that Scott Wolter's a hack with weird delusions of Knights Templar expeditions and bogus Hooked Xs that only he can see. You're gonna go far, kid.

    6. The only reason I can think of for the "debunker" to spend so much time and effort ripping me, my research, and the show is because he's somehow making money off the endeavor. I certainly know how much time it takes to maintain a blog like this, but at least I have legitimate reasons for doing it.

      It might be a hobby, but I agree that a seemingly intelligent person would have better things to do with his time than obsess about television shows and their hosts. Therefore, a financial motive is the only thing that makes sense.

      In any case, I'm thinking of sending him a Christmas card this year as a thank you for creating controversy which results in more people watching the show.

    7. I'm watching an AMERICA UNEARTHED episode right now and you say, "As a scientist, I focus on facts. But in this case, I can't ignore the oral tradition." Precisely.

      It's easy to Google dry facts and hope Wiki's going to come through for you, but there's absolutely another side to conducting research, and that's something I believe you perfect on your show.

      I know that many of the naysayers claim that their motives aren't to cover up history or perpetuate this myth (recognized by the government through official holiday status) of Columbus being the first European to "discover" North America, and that they simply believe that research should entirely adhere to the Scientific Method. Yet they detract. Wasting time trying to argue the most banal of points. To the best of my knowledge you have never claimed to be an archaeologist, nor have I ever seen you sporting a whip or an Indiana Jones hat on AMERICA UNEARTHED. You have always claimed to be a forensic geologist. Apparently your opinion is valued by the Feds in the wake of a national tragedy but you're not qualified enough to examine rocks on AE (unless you dismiss everything as a hoax, and then I'm certain your critics would have a sudden change of heart).

      I really have no idea why this is such a big deal that it has become the number one result on Google. This is absolutely, 100% a non issue. The Wright brothers weren't pilots."Doctor" Franklin, electricity enthusiast that he was, took a humanistic approach to science (recall his satirical suggestion for a potion to make human flatulence smell like perfume). Edison accomplished more than most ever will and he never finished high school. "Doctor" Hunter S. Thompson bought his doctorate and in his prime he could out-write any blogger out there. To get hung up on degrees and and certificates is just stupid. It's a not-so-clever ploy to detract attention from the real issue (which everyone should have an interest in) and focus it on a fabricated circus. As in all aspects of life, sometimes the best results come from an intelligent outsider that missed out on the Kool-Aid party, thus rendering him or her capable of looking at a situation both objectively and differently than those entrenched in the established doctrines and facts of their chosen fields. There's no room for closed-minded armchair adventurers in scientific discovery. We need all the people we can get to go out there and explore, but they have to be open-minded. That in itself is the Spirit of America. Our country would have crashed and burned long ago if we were all closed-minded and stuffy.

      I think an Xmas card would be a good idea. God knows how many people were turned on to your show based on the drama alone.

      (P.s. I believe you have a new email.)

    8. The naysayers are using a tried and true old trick. If you can't attack the message (with factual contradictory evidence in this case), then attack the messenger. Some people are feel threatened and back off not wanting to engage in the fight. For me, it's simply additional confirmation that I'm on the right track and serves to inspire me more.

      Factual evidence and truth is what it is regardless if the person generating it is a PhD or has no formal education at all. This whole debate reminds me of what an attorney friend once said about trial lawyers: "If the facts aren't on your side, then argue the law. If the law isn't on your side, then argue the facts. If neither one is on your side, then just argue."

      Email is the same:

    9. Mr. Wolter.

      I am reminded of your work by Bernstein and Woodward and Watergate. They, like you, probed into matters and asked questions that upset the established order. They did great work which was often criticized and their journalism was often called into question, usually right as they were hitting close to home. Despite their great work, they made a mistake that almost cost them their reputations but also almost derailed the Watergate story.
      The reporters talked to Hugh Sloan who was the accountant for CREEP. Sloan told them (after he had testified before a grand jury) that if he were asked, he would testify that H.R. Halderman, Nixon's Chief of Staff, was one of the persons in charge of CREEP money. The reporters reported that Sloan had named Halderman as a person in charge of the money before the Grand Jury. Sloan's lawyer then reported that Sloan had never testified that Halderman had control of the money. The truth was that Sloan was never asked by the Prosecutors any questions about Halderman because the prosecutors were under White House control. My point is to be careful. Keep digging for the truth, keep asking questions, and keep up the good work.

      I am from Illinois and wonder if you have any interest in the lost cache of Henri DiTonti?

    10. John,

      Interesting take on the Watergate investigation; you can be sure that I will continue on with what I do whether it's on television or not. There are too many things I want to know more about and it's more fun than finding a big, beautiful lake Superior agate.

      OK; well almost as fun...

    11. I think you miss Scott Wolter's point all together. Which leads me to question your motives.

    12. To Anonymous, the original response on this thread of replies.

      First off, Christopher Columbus did not discover America. If you look in actual history books and his navigation, he never even made it to main land United States. I found the Carribean islands as far as the post-Dark Ages mainland European empires record of history. History is not fact. History is a 'truth' not a 'fact'. A truth from a perspective. The science of archaeology and history research is to update the truths with facts discovered and inherently assessed. While there must be peer assessment but academic institutions are politicized. Therefore, you find 'religions' within academia. I appreciate Scott Wolter looking at history from a different view and challenge the institution of whatever academic 'religion' is in vogue. Is Scott right? Maybe. Maybe not. Maybe only partly right and partly wrong. Only time will tell. That is what is exciting about the research and challenging what we already 'know' when new facts and new discoveries challenges us to hypothesize.

      History recorded are inherently biased. If you look at much of history in the Americas and most of the post-"Dark Ages" (that can be looked at and analyzed but it is simply a recognized period of time) exploration is written from the point of view of the 'rich European male'.

      History is a written chronicles of people of a period of time either during the flow or written afterwards.

      We may look at and think changing of history is 'revisionist'. If new facts that are determined to be valid tells a different story then you need to revise what is taught and what is written. There is a difference between fact-based revising and political driven revising of history. Sometimes, we can get it wrong and muddied by politics.

      I won't say I agree with Scott's theories or points of views completely. I do see that he encourages us to rethink and not just settle with text book history. It's wrong. It's factually wrong. When you generalize history, you'll get the actual reality of the past wrong. Then again, we can't possibly get it 100% correct or teach such. We have to abstract the facts to tell the essence. Every history tale and that is what history is.... a tale. All we can do or hope to do is improve how factual we are. That will be something that will continue on and on for 1000s of years from now.

      We have found pre-historic bodies with genomes of europeans. There have been people tranversing the globe, and in the 2+ Million years of homo sapien species, all we can say is people have been migrating around the world throughout those millions of years. Pretty much all the history of known civilizations that we know about are in the last 20,000 years (based on history book timelines). We know nearly nothing about civilization over 20,000 years ago. What about possible pre-ice age civilizations? What do we know about them? Probably very little.

      The notion of academic peer assessment was established not for political reasons but for collegial evaluation of facts and points of views from multiple disciplines because no one can get it completely right. They just can't see the world through that many lenses of disciplines.

      At the same time, academic institutions have also politicized the issues for many reasons. It can be for job security or any other reason imaginable. Academia isn't perfect and the institutions of academia isn't either. Nor are they the enemy. Nor is people who genuinely are interested in challenging the long established 'myths' (as they may) with discovery and research of new facts.

    13. Rick,

      You've summed things up pretty well although the debunkers won't accept the points you've laid out. They're already thinking of ways to nit-pick and twist around what is the obvious truth.

      We've all recently heard about a new 'set of facts' consistent with what appears to be a second Viking-era settlement on the extreme southwestern point of Newfoundland. This puts the Norse even closer to the mainland of the continent staring straight into the beaconing mouth of the St. Lawrence River.

      It's only a matter of time before more evidence is found suggesting the Viking-era Norse, and the medieval Templar's who came just after them, were exploring the interior. Why wouldn't the Vikings continue south and inland to warmer latitudes after traveling across the harsh North Atlantic from Scandinavia. These people were hearty explorers and it never made sense they simply stopped at the virtual wasteland of L'ance Aux Meadows and then went back.

      This new discovery confirms what was always simple common sense and I'm sure this is only the beginning of many new facts that will change the historical narrative of this continent.

  2. You have explained this thoroughly. Don't explain anything else to the so-called skeptics--they don't care about truth or seeking it. Just keep looking for truth and report what you find. Good job.

  3. Dear Anonymous #1

    I think the comment about skeptics not being seriously interested in the truth was well said by the above post by Anonymous #2. It reminds me of what a lawyer friend once said about trial lawyers, "When the law isn't on your side, argue the facts. When the facts aren't on your side, argue the law. When neither one is on your side, just argue."

    In the cases we investigate on the show, when the facts aren't on their side, attack me. I'm fine with the criticism and as I've said many times, when you're done calling me names and criticizing, let's talk about the facts shall we?

    In the interest of full disclosure I have deleted two skeptic's posts for the following reasons: The first post accused me of lying saying the blog post I said had been removed was up the entire time. In a search for response two weeks ago my post was no where to be found which triggered this post. If it has since been reloaded, fine. the post also included an advertising link which will not be passed along here.

    The second post used the F-word in their criticism which is a 'no-no'.

  4. I am curious to your thoughts on what Anonymous # 1 asked about the "Columbus Myth"? On several occasions you have talked about the "Columbus Myth", but I would say no serious academic, school or text book still talks about any Columbus being the 1st European to the western hemisphere. So my question is why do you keep talking about it?

  5. Just a few comments: You are wise to moderate all posts under a blog. If a search is made of "blog comments libel slander", it's clear that bloggers can be and are held responsible for the comments made by others under their blog. It's pretty clear that you are being defamed by an alleged skeptical blogger's comments. But the truth is that the vast majority of people like your work and respect you. The loudmouths who incessantly agree with the skeptic leaders are fulfilling their role as skeptards. They may or may not be real, they may simply be posts by the same person.

    1. You are right-on that the skeptic and his minions represent a small minority, many whom are the very people who are, in part, responsible for the twisted history we're trying to sort out.

      In truth, the controversy they create helps our ratings. However, on this site I'd prefer to talk about the facts and what they are consistent with on this various topics we investigate on the show. I'm fine engaging skeptics who take the subject matter seriously. What I don't appreciate are negative agendas and deception.

  6. If it weren't for Lance Aux Meadows we'd still hail Columbus Day and the Roman Catholic Church would be giddy. The fact is the same 'serious academics' turn a blind eye to the obvious conclusive evidence behind the "Big Three", the Kensington Rune Stone, the Bat Creek Stone, and the Tucson Lead Artifacts. To accept them throws the last 2000 years of North American history upside down completely.

    Using the phrase, "Myth of Columbus" simplifies the discussion which of course much more complicated. We have a long way to go to erase the damage done by the myths. the other is Native Americans were "savages" thus justifying genocide and taking their land during the great land grab.

    Until the Smithsonian, Wikipedia, and many scholars (not all) stop with the smear campaign against these and other pre-Columbian artifacts and sites I will continue to use the phrase to raise awareness to the problem.

    1. So to understand your response, you are knowingly using a false statement to generate interest in still questionable artifacts. To be honest most experts are not going to agree with your assertion that “obvious conclusive evidence behind the "Big Three", the Kensington Rune Stone, the Bat Creek Stone, and the Tucson Lead Artifacts”. To my understanding a lot more research would need to be done on all of these artifacts.

      The idea “myth of Columbus” does not simplify the argument, in fact it confuses the entire argument. By continually using the term “myth of Columbus” in your television show, blogs and other public events you are misinforming the general public. You are creating a false narrative that could call into question your work to anyone that understands that there is no “myth of Columbus” (which is most people that paid attention to any North American History class)

      Of course it is not for me to say that you can or can not continue using the phrase. But it looks a lot like chicken little shouting “the sky is falling”. Maybe try something different, like “our history is incomplete”. Just a suggestion.

    2. I think you're being a little to rigid; until it becomes universally accepted in academia that there were multiple cultures that came to what is now the United States, the myth is alive and well. You and I both know Lance Aux Meadows proved the Vikings had been to North America, but what we're talking about now is the U.S.

      We are not misinforming the public because we plainly stated in the Vikings episode they made it to N.A. I think you understand the point I'm trying to make.

      As far as the Big Three, most experts have been, and many still are, (especially in Sweden) blatantly dishonest or horribly incompetent when it comes to these three artifacts. I am currently working on getting Thomas Bent's book he wrote in 1964 about the Tucson artifacts that, was never published, to the masses. How anyone could believe these artifacts that were discovered in a pristine archaeological context including five that were discovered while under the control of the U of Arizona, could be fake is, quite frankly, is unconscionable.

      We have a lot of work to do my friend, but I appreciate the suggestion.

  7. Perhaps the skeptics should read a few of the books available. I have posted this before and its readily available at all online bookstores.

    It concerns the original research and excavations of the "Arizona Crosses". I have zero respect for anybody who jumps on the train of stupidity and has not read this book. As for that A - #1 poster. He really has lost and provides no useful information. I have no interest in him (I also know who he is) and his blog would be called "junk science".

    The book I'm referring to is the biography of Byron Cummings. When A #1 wants to talk and discuss a 40 years experienced archaeologist, I'm listening. But until then, I would encourage ALL readers here to read this book. The author is Todd Bostwick. When you want the facts, you go to the experts. You will also notice that NONE of the sources on the net regarding this even mention Bryon Cummings. The first question you should ask is -- WHY -

  8. Additional post regarding the book by Todd Bostwick --- it seems the price has more then doubled. this is sad. I do hope this is not a deterrent to getting it.

    1. Explorer Dave,

      I just ordered the book; thank you for the tip. In talking with staff at the Arizona Historical Society when I was there (three times in 2011 and 2012 to examine the artifacts) they said Cummings, who believed the artifacts were genuine, was reportedly caught up in political intrigue over the authenticity of the artifacts at the University during the time he was being considered for President of the institution.

      The details escape me at the moment, but he apparently felt compelled to take a neutral position instead of advocating their authenticity so as not to jeopardize his chance to be the University President.

      I'll have to re-visit that story and might post something after I read his book.

  9. here are also some links that I have been following -- I do hope they are helpful and very important

    below is Todd's Archaeology Company -- just looking at his facebook page and his credentials speak for themselves.

    i'll get my name right this time (hehhe)

  10. He really more then anything just packed everything up in boxes and moved on to other things. He knew the truth because he was there and did his own excavations. He was also a "true" southwest kind of guy. That is, he didn't put up with any crap from "New Yak (York)" people.

  11. Let's assume the KRS, Bat Creek Stone, and Tucson Artifacts are all authentic. None of the three prove anything about the Templar stuff you keep talking about. The Bat Creek and Tuscon finds would be much older than the Templar Order, and the KRS doesn't mention anything about Templars. The Templar narrative you keep pushing is one gigantic house of cards of supposition after supposition all built on one anomalous rune. No rational thinking person would believe for one minute based on your word alone that the existence of one strange out ranks every other historical account and archaeological find we have. I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm simply saying you need to come up with more than just your word on these things.

    1. Let me ask if you have read my three books on the Templars in America subject matter? I mean really read them with an open mind? If so, there's no way to conclude it was anybody else but the Templars. In a forensic investigation every piece of factual evidence has to fit or you're simply not there. In this case, the KRS, Spirit Pond RS, Narragansett RS, Newport Tower, the Hooked X, Freemasonry, and the other voluminous evidence in Europe, and Jerusalem, presented in my books is an open and shut case.

      There is even more evidence yet to be presented that is the final piece that proves this historical puzzle is complete. What I'm hoping for is for the open-minded academics in the appropriate disciplines to seriously consider this evidence. I'd like nothing more than to dispense with the name-calling and personal attacks and really talk about the evidence. That collaboration between appropriate academic disciplines is sorely lacking.

      I would love to see that change.

  12. Actually, no he does not. Your the one who needs to come up with your own research. Scott is not the only one who has researched any of this.

    You really need to do your own science, hire your own engineers, etc. to publish your own research. This is the way it is done. Science for science. Fact for fact. On the "lead crosses", you really need to counter the work of Byron Cummings. Until then, you really don't have anything.

    1. I don't know how anyone could possibly counter the archaeological work done as the Tucson Lead Artifacts were discovered. Geologically, they are 100% consistent with having been buried in the ground for many centuries. If so, they must be genuine and therefore the inscriptions and symbols caved into them must be accepted. It's that simple.

      Changing people's minds to accept the alternate history they represent is the hard part. It wouldn't be hard at all if people put their personal beliefs aside and simply followed the science.

  13. they can't but yet they belittle what is already done by professionals in the chosen field. So they went "political". Your show and research has confirmed and vetted what has already been done.

    This game is really over.

  14. If I was given or awarded an honorary degree whether it was official or not I'd be proud and most definitely put it on my resume and then list the Professors name as a reference. Honorary or not, Mr. Wolters research speaks for itself, and I'm sure History channel agrees which is why they gave him an hour long show with multiple successful seasons. Keep up the good work Scott!

    1. Omar,

      This misleading discussion about my degree is simply a technique to distract people from the important historical topics we investigate. Skeptics refuse to take on the direct evidence and use various tactics to steer the conversation elsewhere.

      For the "Big Three" (KRS, Bat Creek, Tucson Lead Artifacts) it is really is over as far as the factual evidence being consistent and conclusive with authenticity. What has only just begun is their broad acceptance by academia and the public.

      It is my hope that reticent academics will reach out and pursue a fruitful discussion about the evidence; much of it falling within the realm of archaeology. Vital aspects of these artifacts especially fall under the realm of geology and once the interdisciplinary collaboration begins it will get really fun and meaningful.

      I prefer not to argue; let’s have a fruitful discussion. I know I could learn more from the knowledge and questions academics have and I'm sure they could learn from both me and my colleagues as well.

      Let's put down the swords and pick up our mugs (both coffee and beer).

  15. I can't wait for the next season (hint: just around corner)

    stay tuned

  16. I received a blog post this morning that conveys the details and analysis of an on-line radio interview with an individual who has been critical of me in the past. The poster's analysis is consistent with my opinion this individual's life is out of balance and they should not be taken seriously.

    I certainly appreciate the feedback and support, but let's keep the discussion on topics of interest and not waste time on people or things that do not further the discussion in a constructive manner.

  17. Why haven't you mentioned that the internet debunker has defended you when josh reeves wrote vile things about you?.

    1. Mike,

      The reason I haven't mentioned the blog, and won't, is because I don't read it and have no plans to. I stated the reason for mentioning the blog in my post above and for me the matter is resolved.

      As far as the other person goes, I don't know who he is and don't care. As I said in my blog post, the people who criticize me personally are welcome to their opinion. If they believe an argument will be won by attacking an individual and not addressing the facts, will likely be disappointed.

      I'm not interested in personal attacks and debunkers; I'm interested in factual evidence, logic, and trying to figure out what historical truths they support. We know a large part of the current history that is taught is wrong and I'm trying to do whatever I can to set things straight.

  18. I think it's astonishing that any court in America would let you testify about anything and consider you an's a complete failure of our court system.I find your program entertaining but it's entertainment, I know it's all think your opinion may have swayed a jury one way or the other is appalling.

  19. Kevin,

    I am a licensed professional forensic geologist and have testified as an expert witness in dozens of legal cases over the course of my career. Is it really appalling to believe that I could have a professional career outside of the show? Surely you don't believe that.

    What is it about our show that makes you so angry? Perhaps it's fear that I might be right about the conclusions I reach in many of our investigations?

    1. Curious. How many of those court cases involved claimed ancient authenticity of rune stones?

    2. I'm waiting for the opportunity to do just that, and I like my chances.

  20. Mr Wolter,

    I have a few comments.
    Firstly, an "honourary degree" is usually recognised as such by the institution that confers it. If it is not recognised, it is not an honourary degree. What you have received is the sympathy and friendship of some people who have done something nice for you. Its not an honourary degree, and representing it as such is not credible, or I suspect, legal.
    Secondly, you apparently have not read any of this "debunkers" work, and yet you are quite willing to make judgments about him/her and that reflects badly on your work.
    Thirdly, you claim to be interested in factual evidence and logic, but are not prepared to enter into conversation with people who have analysed your factual evidence and logic and perhaps agreed, disagreed, found issues, or weak points in your arguments that should be addressed.
    The process of science is to make an hypothesis, then support it with evidence, and then allow that evidence to be tested, and keep testing until you come up with something that is factual. You can not do this by not engaging with your critics.
    Really, if you wish to be taken seriously, because as far as I can see, apart from a few who believe what you say, generally you are not taken seriously.
    A good lawyer would quite easily get your evidence dismissed for these reasons and more.

  21. Geoff,

    First, I respectfully disagree with your opinion, but you are welcome to it.

    Second, I am happy to engage any questions from anyone here on this blog.

    Third, I am happy to engage any questions about my work either here, via email, or in writing. I am not ducking anyone; I just chose to have the discussion here.

    Fourth, a forensic investigation starts with a blank slate. There are no preconceived theories. Then you begin to compile factual evidence and see where it leads and what it supports. What you have described is a self-fulfilling prophecy and is a large part of the reason so many past investigations have reached the wrong conclusion.

    This is exactly what happened with the Kensington Rune Stone for the past 116 years and the linguists and runologists are still doing it. If you want specific examples I can give them.

    A good lawyer has no choice but to accept this methodology as they have repeatedly done so in the cases I've testified in.

    The fact that you have chosen to express your views here is evidence that you do take me seriously.

    1. Hi Mr Wolter, thanks for responding.
      In the case of the first, its not opinion, just a quick google would reveal this:
      An honorary degree[1] or a degree honoris causa (Latin: "for the sake of the honor")[2] is an academic degree for which a university (or other degree-awarding institution) has waived the usual requirements, such as matriculation, residence, study and the passing of examinations. The degree is typically a doctorate or, less commonly, a master's degree, and may be awarded to someone who has no prior connection with the academic institution.[3]

      The degree is often conferred as a way of honouring a distinguished visitor's contributions to a specific field or to society in general. It is often given to graduation speakers at a university or college, and the university may derive benefits by association with the person in question. The degree is not recognized by employers as having the same stature as a corresponding earned doctorate degree and should not be represented as such. It is sometimes recommended that such degrees be listed in one's CV as an award and not in their education section,[4] and some institutions of higher education have policies on the use of the title "Dr" in formal correspondence. (from wikipedia - echoed by many other sources. I have a degree (only a lowly BA) and my university had/has strict rules on honourary degrees, as most do).

      In regards to the second: If I read the comments on this blog correctly, and please tell me if I err, but you deleted someone's comment's that pointed to some information which was possibly opposed to how you felt things should be? That doesn't appear to agree with what you replied to me, nor does it seem fair to readers/viewers/etc.
      In respect to the third: It shouldn't matter which forum, if there are people who are countering your evidence with opposing evidence, you should be willing to engage them, and they you, in order to bring the truth to light.

      Forthly, no, it doesn't start with a blank slate, it starts with the need to investigate something, which in turn only requires investigation if it fits the criteria of the investigator. However, that's not what we are talking about. We're talking about science.
      You see a rune stone, and your curiosity is piqued. Why? Because you have ideas and preconceptions about runes (this applies to anything but using the rune stone as an example since you brought it up). You investigate it and form a hypothesis regarding it, and then search for evidence to support that hypothesis.
      Someone else who also has an interest in these things sees your hypothesis and your evidence and critiques it. They might provide counter evidence, and a counter hypothesis. You then, if you follow process and their hypothesis is defensible (as you claim yours to be), critique their hypothesis and evidence, and so the dialogue begins.
      The upshot is, at the end, mature persons would hopefully hone their hypothesis and evidence to make their position stronger.
      This does not seem to be the case here. Thus, the lawyer would easily dismiss it. Since in a court of law, there should be a plethora of witnesses for and against, and the stronger evidence/hypothesis winning the day.

      What I do take seriously is truth. I want to know the truth. I do my damnedest to verify that what people present to me as fact, actually is. And the only way I can do that is to verify the integrity of the method they have used to gain that evidence, along with the evidence and hypothesis themselves. Then I check that against what other experts say, and hopefully come out better informed, and assured who is more likely to be right or wrong. When I think something is wrong, I will say so. That's how we roll here in New Zealand.

  22. Skeptics are "true believers" who will attack those who disagree with them. The attacks they mount are personal barbs and insults, ridicule, and a constant litany of ever-changing arguments. They seldom respond directly to facts that contradict their beliefs. When someone takes the time to say "you are not taken seriously" the person really means the exact opposite. His beliefs are deeply threatened.

    1. This is certainly true in some cases. However, let's try to alleviate the negative 'beliefs' by discussing the specifics that led to them.

      What specific points are of concern to any of you skeptics with regard to the Kensington Rune Stone? That's a logical place to start.

  23. Geoff: You see a runestone and you immediately assume it's a fake—because of your beliefs. Then you reject all contradictory evidence without actually examining it.

    1. Geoff,

      Why don't you start; what concerns you most about the Kensington Stone?

    2. Anonymous: I do nothing of the sort. I know very little about runestones, but quite a lot about critical interaction with scholarly works (although not an expert).
      Mr Wolter: Same thing applies. Nothing I have said is about a runestone or anything else. Its about procedure and integrity.

  24. Geoff,

    First, I have presented the historical facts and you can either chose to accept them or not, that is your choice. In any case, degrees have no bearing on the investigations I pursue. They are either supported by evidence and consistent or they are not.

    Second, as I already stated, the post was deleted because it contained a link that was inappropriate for this blog site. The message contained opinions similar to yours and that was it.

    Third/Fourth, In the case of the Kensington Rune Stone, for me, it started with a blank slate. I was hired to conduct a geological examination of the artifact I had never heard of and knew nothing about at the time. Your scenario is a framed situation that is not relevant to what happened in this case. Later, after my peer reviewed geological findings were dismissed by archaeologists, linguists, and historians because they didn't like my conclusion, I embarked on research with the express intent of learning as much as I could about the artifact, the people involved and the inscription itself. It was then I discovered voluminous evidence, much that had never been seen before, that was entirely consistent with authenticity.

    That scenario was closer to the one your described, but my point is every investigation does not follow the same course.

    I like your way of thinking about the truth. If we had some time to sit down and go through the case of the KRS, and it would take a while, I am 100% certain where you would end up. That's how we roll here in Minnesota.

    1. Scott.....

      Your comments dated September 23, 2014 at 6:24 AM and addressed to Geoff...

      "First, I have presented the historical facts and you can either chose to accept them or not."

      You haven't presented many historical facts. Instead, you concentrate on one fact (i.e. one anomalous rune exists on a few American runestones each of controversial origin). Then you interpret that fact based on your own opinions (i.e. the Templars came to America 150 years before Columbus in an effort to found a New Jerusalem in order to protect the bloodline of Jesus). And, you have not shown to many that you are educated enough in the fields of history and archaeology to form intelligent opinions in regard to the fact/s. No one questions your credentials in geology. Being a great geologist doesn't make you a great historian or a great archaeologist any more than being a good chef would automatically make the same person a good engineer without further education.

      I am a regular reader of your blog. Most (not all, but most) of your critics are questioning your interpretation of what the facts mean rather than questioning the facts themselves. I've been slightly disappointed that you don't defend your interpretations of these facts more than you do here on your blog. Instead, you tell these critics to go back and read your books again (plugging your books and ending an uncomfortable conversation), or you complain that people who disagree with your interpretations are somehow attacking you personally.

      Regarding the controversy surrounding your honorary degree.....It is my understanding that you have a legitimate Bachelor's Degree. This is the standard four year degree awarded to college graduates. You value the "honorary Master's Degree", so you obviously see that there is value in post graduate studies and the knowledge earned through the pursuit of such. Two questions......Why don't you earn a real Master's Degree and put this controversy to rest? And, if you value your education, professors, academic achievements, etc., then why are you so quick to condemn those who have earned similar or more advanced degrees in other fields as backward thinking essence, why are you the ONLY person that formal education worked for? I know you don't truly think this way, but a response to these questions would allow many of your followers a clearer picture of what you mean when you say these things.


    2. HI Mr Wolter: thanks for again for responding.
      In the first: I agree, about qualifications, however, when they are placed on a CV they are there for authority, but if the degree is not recognised by anyone it carries no authority. I'm not picking on you, I'm just trying to clarify what an actual honourary degree is, and how that differs from your "sympathy" one.
      Second: what opinions that are the same as mine? I didnt read it. I have no idea. Surely that is the point though?
      Third: I'm not sure your analysis of why experts in the field rejected your work is correct. I know when I research something, and my peers (most of whom are more expert than I) find that my conclusions are incorrect, there is a good reason and I should (and do) take note, and revisit my work with an open mind. Sometimes they are wrong and I am able to prove it, other times they are right, and I correct my hypothesis.
      That's how it works.

      I've watched your shows, and read a bit both for and against. Its not important enough to me at this point to research it further, nor will the world end if I dont form an opinion on its veracity. I prefer to go "oh, that's interesting" and move on.

      Anonymous above makes a good point. Your sympathy degree means a lot to you, as it should, and it would to me too. However, to the rest of the world it seems like it should probably be left as something precious between you and them, and not used by the networks in such a way.

    3. Geoff,

      You are welcome to the last word on the degree with the exception that the network has not used it in any way.

      With regard to the point about experts rejecting my work; keep in mind it has not been experts in the field of geology. They agree with my findings which support the early work of geologist Newton H. Winchell. What I object to is the rejection of my geological work by some academics in disciplines outside of geology such as archaeology, linguistics, runology and anthropology. In my view they are hardly qualified to evaluate my work and not coincidentally, have already rendered contrary opinions about these artifacts.

      I would hope you can understand why I feel this is inappropriate at least and unethical at worst.

    4. Well, I can understand why you might feel that way about your geological work, and that's fine. However, most of these people appear to be rejecting your work on history, runestones, other things which are not specifically geology related. These are the things to which I refer, not your geology research.

    5. Instead of outright rejecting, they should pause, reflect, and realize I don't throw these ideas out lightly. I understand it goes against the grain, but sometimes it takes someone from outside the "squad" to bring in new light.

  25. Lottie,

    I never claimed to be a great historian or archaeologist, but I am intelligent enough to read books, reports, technical papers, etc., in the relevant areas to understand the specific history I'm investigating. I also consult with appropriate academics and other experts with expertise germane to the subject matter. Is that not what a scholar does?

    People are welcome to disagree with my interpretations; that doesn't make them wrong. If the people who disagree with me were dealing with the same facts, they would likely come down on my side of the interpretations. That is where the problems lies.

    As far as furthering my education; back then I had to go to work to provide for myself and then my family. I would love to spend the time to learn more, but there simply isn't time at this stage in my life. Regardless, having all the degrees in the world doesn't make facts and interpretations any more or less valid. There are plenty of PhD's who have made many mistakes and over time; being highly educated is not an iron-clad guarantee of success. For the most part, there are many highly educated scholars out there doing excellent work.

    I'm ready to talk about specifics any time you are.

    1. Scott.....the "facts" and your interpretation of them are two separate and distinct things. While the "facts" cannot be argued, the conclusions you come to regarding the facts can and should be debated. Yet, you do not enter into debate even here in a forum you control. By avoiding debate you hinder your message, your personal growth, and your own research.

      If you are ready to talk about specifics as you claim, then I'm game.......the chapter in your "Hooked X" book regarding sacred geometry of the stone holes and the discovery location of the KRS. Could you please explain it to me? I've read that chapter several times and it does not make sense to me. I can look at the lines you draw, but the lines and what they mean are not explained very well. Could you please cite the texts you referenced that instructed you as to what the significance of these lines and angles mean and why they are considered "sacred"? After I read the material you referenced we will be on equal footing, and I will be better able to ask intelligent questions. Also, there have been conflicting reports in the past regarding the exact location of where the KRS was found on the Ohman property. The location you use.....why did you choose that particular one, and how did you rule out others?

      Above you claim to consult with appropriate academics and experts with experience germane to the subject matter. I'm confused by your message. You often tell us that the academics are wrong for various reasons (politics, pandering for funding, etc.), yet, you consult academics and experts. How do you know what academics and experts to consult and how can you trust the information they give you?


    2. Lottie,

      I am not avoiding anyone; as I have repeatedly stated I prefer to have the discussion here.

      The location of the KRS using the stone holes at the Ohman Farm is simple and straightforward. All we did was take a ruler and tried connecting dots to see what would happen. It turned out eight of the stone holes created three lines that intersected at the exact location where the KRS was discovered. It really was as simple as that. Incidentally, the location of the dots on the satellite map was done by a North Dakota surveyor.

      It is a fact that the lines we drew intersect where the KRS was found, it is my speculation it was intentionally done by the KRS party to relocate it.

      There is also the matter of the stone holes that we did not use as part of the triangulation. What we also know is the four smallest boulders with stone holes are in the ditch on the northern side of the once farmed field. We believe they were cleared by the Ohman's in preparation for farming. The three others north of that field are in very large boulders and form an equilateral triangle. My speculation is it could be a symbol of confirmation to a returning party.

      This explains all of the stones holes at the Ohman Farm and it very plausible.

      I often say that SOME academics are wrong and misguided for various reasons. I can tell which ones to trust by how they conduct themselves, their reasoning, and their logic. Likely the same way you or anyone else would evaluate someone presenting themselves as an expert

    3. Okay, I think I better understand your use of the stone holes on the Ohman property. Do the lines intersect where the marker in the park is placed, or do they intersect at one of the many other locations on the farm where it has been suggested the KRS was found?

      And, if you used pretty straight-forward triangulation techniques to pinpoint the KRS discovery site, then how does this qualify as "sacred" geometry? The term "sacred" denotes some kind of supernatural or religious association to this technique. How does the "sacred" aspect figure in to the triangulation you used?

    4. The intersection is not where the discovery site marker currently is. In fact, it's long been know it wasn't in the correct spot, but at the time they didn't know exactly where it was, but felt it was close enough. It wasn't until the new research came along that the exact discovery spot became important.

      Most people don't understand that the leadership of the Cistercians and their Knights Templar brethren were mystics. Successfully completing this land claim pilgrimage across the continent would likely have been considered a miracle on some levels and completion of the triangulation with placing the land claim stone and the equilateral triangle marking would have been considered sacred geometry to them.

    5. "There is also the matter of the stone holes that we did not use as part of the triangulation."

      So first, we have 8 holes making 3 lines, ok, possible I guess. But now we have the above, which reeeeeallllly sounds like cherry-picking the data.

      "Most people don't understand that the leadership of the Cistercians and their Knights Templar brethren were mystics."

      Cite a source for those two points, please: the mystic part and the "brethren" part. TIA.


  26. I have read the exact same text from several sites referring to the double dots marks on the KRS as

    "The double dots do not represents umlauts, however, but were part of a grammatical convention in use throughout the 1300s"

    I cannot find any further information as to what those grammatical conventions are. Could you provide any reference to that?

    1. 'm not sure what text you are talking about, but the dots above several characters clearly do represent umlauts in the KRS inscription and are believed to represent Germanic influence. In fact, it was believed there were no umlauts above the Hooked X character in the word "har" on line 10. The misunderstanding originated when Olaus Breda, then Professor of Scandinavian Studies at the University of Minnesota, looked at the Olof Ohman copy of the inscription that did not have the umlauts (two dots) above the Hooked X. This meant it was a modern Scandinavian word and therefore concluded it was a modern hoax. Every Scandinavian scholar since has pointed to "har" as the chief piece of linguistic evidence of a modern origin for the stone.

      It wasn't until I generated the photo-library of the inscription under the microscope in 2002, when I discovered, in fact, two dots were present above the Hooked X rune in "har." I didn't understand the significance at the time, but I soon learned it was of vital importance. It changed the chief piece of linguistic evidence the inscription was modern, to powerful linguistic evidence the inscription was medieval.

      And what about Ohman's copy without the dots? If he was the forger as everybody claimed, why aren't the dots there? The reason is he didn't know the dots were there (probably still filled with mud when he made the copy in December of 1898) because he didn't carve it.

      Perhaps the most important reference I can cite dealing with umlauts on the KRS is the paper written by Professor Henrik Williams and Richard Nielsen in October of 2003 (Appendix B in The Kensington Rune Stone: Compelling New Evidence, pages 535-538). Quoting Williams and Nielsen, "It turns out the researchers have been slipshod on this point." "In other words it is found that with the new reading and interpretation the word "har" cannot be used as unambiguous evidence against the Kensington Stone's 1300s origin." "The only thing that is certain is that the Kensington Rune Stone needs to be studied further before we can reach a definite result. Whether everyone will be convinced even then remains to be seen."

      Shortly after this paper was published, Professor Williams was reportedly punished with additional administrative duties for spending time studying the KRS by the President of Uppsala University in Sweden. I was in his office in Sweden when he shared this news with Nielsen and me.

      This is just one reason why I am so skeptical of the honesty and integrity of some scholars in Sweden. Based on my experiences during my five trips to Sweden between 2003-2005 researching the KRS, Hell will freeze over before the scholars in Sweden admit the KRS is genuine no matter what evidence is presented. I'm sure Professor Williams would likely deny this story if contacted since he has become hostile toward me in recent years.

    2. That's interesting about the umlauts missing from Olaf Ohman's copy. I can see how that would drastically change interpretations.

      From what I understand though about Germanic Umlauts is that they don't start appearing in Germany until the 16th century and not in runes until the 18th century. Wouldn't that still make them the wrong time period to be on the KRS?

      I understand that perhaps some form could possibly have been around earlier than has been found but would it have been present in enough quantity to influence their being on a Scandinavian inscription from the 14th century?

    3. The KRS may be authentic. I'm certainly open to the possibility. And, the ramifications of a genuine KRS are interesting to me. But, constructing an elaborate Templar Knights story based on one runestone.......I can't buy into any of that without more information.

    4. The Ohman copy was then published in the Svenska Amerikanska Posten newspaper in 1899, and copies of the newspaper made it to Scandinavia where three more of the top scholars there came to the same conclusion it was a hoax based largely on the word "har."

      This set an important precedent whose impact is still felt to this day; especially in Sweden. Professor Henrik Williams was the first Scandinavian scholar to understand the error and when he tried to address it, he was punished. This is what I'm talking about when I say how some scholars have screwed this up. Even though he is now hostile toward me, I give him a lot of credit for trying to go against the grain and Swedish academic culture to try and understand this amazing inscription.

      In all the years I've dealt with the linguistics of the KRS never once have I heard anything about the umlauts being a problem in the 14th Century. They certainly were discussed, but if the carver was educated in Gotland as many suspect, there was a heavy Germanic influence there and the use of umlauts would be expected.

    5. The Templar/Cistercian theory is an elaborate web of intentional secrecy that has been difficult to unravel. However, there is a lot of current evidence (artifacts and sites) and more are being discovered all the time now that we know where to look. I invite you to carefully read my Hooked X and Akhenaten books and I know you'll see that evidence unfold.

      Seriously, I'm not trying to sell the books solely for financial reasons. Obviously, money is important, but buy a cheap used copy on Amazon if you need to. I really think you'll see we've made some important and convincing progress.

    6. To clarify, phonologically in Germany in the late Middle Ages an "umlaut" was much more commonly written as an 'e' next to or above the letter it modifies. It isn't until the 16th century that in writing the e gets shortened to a tilde or the two dots.

      Or am I understanding the linguistics wrong?

    7. I have to plead ignorance on this one. As I said, never once have heard a linguist talk about any problems with double dotted umlauts in the KRS inscription.

    8. "...but if the carver was educated in Gotland as many suspect, there was a heavy Germanic influence there and the use of umlauts would be expected".

      Well considering that Gotland was inhabited by members of the Germanic people, and the language a branch of the Germanic languages, known as North Germanic, I'd say there was more than a "heavy Germanic influence" there.

    9. I don't think that point is in debate.

    10. No, but you stated "...there was a heavy Germanic influence there ...". Pretty sure it was more than an influence, given they were of the Germanic tribes.

  27. At the time of the AU premiere your public resume listed an honorary masters degree. You don't have one. You never did. If you don't know that you're incompetent, if you do you're a fraud.

  28. Go back and read the my post at the top of this thread. Framing the argument to suit your agenda doesn't change the facts of what happened. Can you explain how the degree has anything to do with competency? You are welcome to your opinion so can we move on now that you've expressed it or is this a technique to avoid talking about what is relevant?

    1. I honestly could care less about your degree.

      But I would like to say that one claiming to have an "honorary degree" from a university is not the same thing as having an "...honorary 'sympathy' degree" given in jest over a cup of coffee in the break room. Even if you have always coined it a "sympathy degree" not explicitly stating that it was not an actual degree is a problem.

      The way you phrase it in the original post of this thread still calls it a "degree", sympathy or not. It is not a degree of any sort.

      One has to question your judgement for publicly saying what equates to a first grader getting a gold star is akin to a masters degree. Why one would do that is a little odd. Why not just say you gave a lecture, and some professors, who you were buddies with, gave you high praise? Because from that story of yours that seems to be the truth. If a guy tried to practice law or medicine by saying they had an "honorary “sympathy” degree" from so and so they wouldn't be able to. Your failure to see why others who in fact hold a masters degree in your field, or in history etc...are troubled by your claim is also ridiculous. You present yourself as an academic, so one would think you'd know better.

      As far as the people saying this issue discredits your show, I'd say they are as asinine as your claiming to have received a masters degree over a cup of coffee. It is for entertainment, if you people want an education enroll in an accredited college/university. The issues over what Wolter calls a degree does nothing to bring credit to, nor take credit away from, his show on H2. I'd also argue it does nothing to discredit anything else he does, as I highly doubt that the "honorary 'sympathy' degree" had anything to do with him getting the job to host AU, or any-other jobs in his lifetime.

    2. People will find whatever excuse they want to discredit whatever it is they disagree with. With regard to your point about my degree being essentially worthless, I couldn't disagree more. It was my professor's who chose to acknowledge me for multiple reasons in what I'm sure was a spontaneous gesture; one of those was for the legitimate and extensive new research I presented on agate formation. Granted it was not conducted following the standard academic route through an institution, but it was an academic accomplishment regardless.

      It's a fact the honorary degree had nothing to do with any job I've had in my working career. The salient point in this whole discussion is there isn't any amount of academic degrees a person can earn that guarantees competent work. In fact, I've seen people deemed the top in their field who have made gross errors in their investigative methods and judgment.

      There's a reason we're having these discussions about our flawed history and much of it has to do with the substandard work of many people in academia who should know better.

    3. I didn't mean to say it was worthless in that sense. So if I came across in that manner forgive me. I'm sure the event does hold immense value for you, and that in itself is immeasurable. I was alluding more toward the difference, IMO, between a degree and what you claim to have received in your story above.

      And I figured it had nothing to do with your work, which is why I pointed that out. To me it seems like some are claiming that you have received professional perks because of it, which I figured wasn't the case.

    4. No offense taken; it happened a long time ago and the only "perk" I ever received from it was a shot in the arm to my confidence at a time when I really needed it. Nothing more, nothing less.

      To have it twisted around by opponents who tried to portray me as dishonest or claiming to be something I'm not is disappointing, but given my recent high profile because of the show dealing with such controversial subject matter it is hardly surprising.

      I've said it many times now; the nastier the criticism gets, the more hardened my resolve is to press onward.

  29. January 22, 2013 6:49 pm

    Scott F. Wolter


    I find your blog entertaining and the comments interesting, but nothing I would normally care to comment on or defend. However, this latest post merits a response since your research is partially right, and partially wrong. There is no way for you to get to the bottom of this so I will help you out.

    In 1986 I self-published my first book entitled, The Lake Superior Agate. It was inspired by a mentor who suggested I write the book shortly after the death of my father as a way to focus on something other than grief and guilt. My father drown while we were scuba diving together on the Great Barrier Reef in Australia. The details of why he died are unclear to me to this day, but the fact is a diver is responsible for his partner’s safety and I lost him.

    For the next two years I had tough time. I had to quit my job as field geologist with Mapco Minerals, my first job out of college one of my professors helped me get, feeling I needed to stay home and help my family. Writing the book helped get me back on my feet, in addition to the support of my then girlfriend and now wife of 26 years.

    Shortly after the book was published, I was invited by the UMD Geology Department to give a lecture at the college about my research. Afterword, six of my former professors asked me technical questions which I answered to their satisfaction. Afterward, they had an informal reception in the Professor’s lounge where they gave me an honorary degree with a whipped cream-topped coffee as my “certificate.”

    Was it officially recognized by the University? No. They gave it to me as I have always presented it to be, a sympathy degree. At the time I was quite proud and when I told my then supervisors at my new job at Twin City Testing, they published the story in the company newsletter and added it to my resume’. Not long ago, the question was asked by the State licensing board if it was an official degree and I said no. Because I didn’t want my professors who now in their eighties to have to answer questions about this, I removed it from my resume’.

    I am still proud of that “degree” because it came from people I respected and still are some of the most important mentors in my life. I am also proud of the other books I’ve written and the research I’ve done in the arena where many scholars have dropped the ball. The Kensington Rune Stone is the prime example. Thank you for the opportunity to clarify the situation and I’m glad you’re enjoying the show.

    Scott F. Wolter, PG
    MN License #30024
    American Petrographic Services, Inc.
    550 Cleveland Avenue North
    St. Paul, MN 55114
    (Cell) 612-875-7871

    Is this the post you were speaking about that you thought got deleted?

  30. Replies
    1. Well I was able to find your post by scrolling down. It takes time to find because of the large amount of posts, but it is there. The time and month should help you find it. It's understandable, that you couldn't find it, having to look through many posts but it was never deleted.

    2. Epyttnelis,

      It's possible that I missed it, but at this point it doesn't matter. I have a more detailed explanation up here and can refer people with questions to this page.

      Thanks for checking!

  31. Scott,

    Since you want to talk about the facts, in your book you talk about how Oreo cookies are evidence of a Templar conspiracy. Can you take some time to explain this more in depth?

  32. The Oreo cookie evidence was clearly explained in the book. What part did you not understand?

  33. Scott: You have many, many more supporters than these snide, allegedly skeptical comments would indicate. A few skeptic trolls can make it seem like it's many people against you. But they are mounting an orchestrated effort to make it appear that it is many people--it is not all that many. Your answer above, citing the evidence in the book, is sufficient.

    1. I understand and appreciate the "skeptics" are in the vast minority, but they do make themselves heard. Being skeptical and having questions is fine, I just wish some of them were a little more civil and clever when expressing themselves. Regardless, if someone takes the time to ask me an intelligent question I am going to do my best to answer it no matter if they like me and/or the show or not.

  34. Hey Scott, I just watched your program on rune stones last night with my boys. We were left hanging about the translation on the stone found in NC. Can you elaborate? On a related note, I traveled to Heavner as a kid...what a cool place. There is not doubt it is an old inscription. Did you consider looking for evidence of the tools used to make it...the nature of any residue left over, be it iron, steel or otherwise. Could provide some clues. Thanks!

  35. Unfortunately, the North Carolina rune stone has not been translated yet and it may be a difficult one. I have never seen triple-dotted runes before so it's likely a unique coded alphabet and without the key, it might be a tough one to crack!

    The tool used was likely a pick because it doesn't appear to have been carved with a straight chisel and hammer. The chances of remnants of steel being present within the grooves of a centuries old inscription are almost zero. Any steel would have oxidized and washed away long ago in an exterior environment like Heavener.

  36. Another code --- damn, I do love a mystery -- always with open ears and eyes. Speaking of mysteries, I don't understand the pushback from Sweden, even in front of the glaring misinterpretations of the original runes. This idea that you can never change your mind is really dangerous. I call them the "flat earth people".

    Also, it seems VERY apparent the noise makers have never read your books. I find that completely embarrassing. They should know better. I would call them "shrill".

  37. As far as Sweden goes, part of the problem is its a different academic culture over there and they take themselves very seriously. To the point where they seem unwilling to admit to mistakes and will punish those who dare to step out of line. It appears to me to be a rigid, suffocating atmosphere that isn't prepared to admit they didn't get the KRS right starting so long ago in spite of the voluminous new linguistic, runological, historical and geological evidence. It's bizarre really, but it is what it is.

  38. I'll weigh in: The myth about Columbus undertaking his journey to prove the world was round has been debunked for a long time; if in fact, it ever qualified as a myth, as that was already known in his time. With respect to him discovering America, though, I can assure you that myth persisted at least up through my childhood in the 1980s and 1990s. Did the higher academia know better? Probably, but then it's even less acceptable for them to permit the falsehood persisting in textbooks. It certainly was not Scott Wolter who enlightened me as to Vikings getting to America, but it certainly wasn't any textbook, either. Grade-school history curricula are a top-down politically-motivated ordeal, and it seems it's acceptable to lie by simply omitting data. Maybe not all of my history textbooks said "Columbus discovered America", but so long as they don't mention the Vikings at all, it essentially counts as such. Why? Maybe they want to keep up a myth of the American nation as a sort of noble pioneer endeavor from the get-go, when the consistent effect of that, be it by Columbus or the Manifest Destiny crowd, was the stealing of the land from its natives. The very phrase "discovered America" stinks of Eurocentricism; it's not like there weren't people there when whoever first sailed there arrived! It's not just our history that was prey to selective omission either; my High School history class completely ignored the Jacobin regime in France; creating illusion that Napoleon just came in and hijacked a healthy democracy for his own ends. Why that omission? Hmm; maybe the idea that democracies can promote their own tyrants legally didn't gel with the All-American values my school wanted to teach. Then there was Iran. The textbook I had DID mention both the US intervening against the relatively democratic, but Soviet-friendly regime to set up the Shah as a dictator, and the revolution against the US that was taken over by Islamists, but NOT in the same chapter; hence you had to dig to see any story besides "Iran is just evil." That's not a comprehensive list of examples, either.

    College history has more political leeway, but having studied it at two schools, I have to say I'm not sure a "mainstream" view exists anymore. It's just multiple schools and multiple teachers advancing multiple political agendas. Who was right or wrong in the Pelopenesian Wars; Pericles or Socrates? What caused the mass-growth of Japan and China as economic powers in the last century; their westernizing reforms or latent potential not tapped yet? I have heard different answers to both these questions.

    1. Only within the past two days have I had any thing to do with this blog site. My involvement came about as I disagree with Scotts constant refrain that history is not as we are or "were" taught. While, in a general sense, that stand may be true, while the fact that Columbus came to the America's is absolutely true. The fact that some, at one point or another, folks thought he was the first is also true. This leads me into my reason for responding to "Anonymous, Sept 25, 2014" as follows. I am 75 years old and attended Northwood Middle School in West Palm Beach, Florida way back in 1952, 53, 54. We were taught that Columbus was credited with discovering the America's. However there was knowledge available that the Norse, better know as Vikings had reached Greenland and supposition was that they also had reached North America proper and landed in now Canada. I have been reading backward through the post's here and seem to remember you,(and please forgive me if I incorrect) saying you came from an area, shall I say not up to snuff with other parts of the nation. Something which rings true throughout all of America as teachers are given a huge latitude regarding fact vs fiction almost everywhere. Rather than researching the subject, it is much easier to practice revisionism, using older text. And then, taking a page from President Clinton, deny, deny, deny! Who woulda thunk it? Of course now, most realize the Vikings were certainly earlier than Columbus and that they dealt with folks who were here prior to themselves. Scott seems to feel the answer is just that. And being open minded, I'll drink to that, along with the right to change my mind should other evidence arise. Did aliens teach those in Mayan, Mexico to perform brain surgery? I believe I will wait before agreeing with the guy who needs some hair crème. Think Ancient Aliens. Cheers all.

  39. As to Scott's own agenda, while I'll grant his Templar theory feels presumptuous, I have to allow that the influence of the Freemasons on American history is now undeniable--and that's something else my high school textbooks totally ignored--and so long as they are withholding secrets, it's okay to advance presumptuous theories. Did the Templars secret themselves away within the Freemasons? Who knows, but it's obvious that was a good organization to get in if you wanted power. They wouldn't have been the only people to go in with that in mind. At any rate, it's not like the Templar theory is the ONLY thing Scott covers--what about the Mississippians? They had an urban civilization in North America centuries before it was supposed to have existed, and they weren't in my grade school curriculum, either. It took Civilization IV for me to learn of their existence, and that's pretty bad. What about the Polynesians, who traveled greater distances than Columbus on less apparent technology?

    That last point is important. Yes; Scott Wolter is a revisionist, but he's not THAT revisionist. Unlike claims about the use of anachronistic technology in building historical structures, which prompt the all-important question of "Then where did that technology go?", the concept of sailing to America before Columbus does not require an assumption of lost knowledge. It may now be a unanimous conclusion among those in the know that the Vikings reached America before Columbus, but the subtext that isn't usually given enough thought is that if the Vikings could do it, so could many other people. The technology was there; as was the motivation for many.

    It is my speculation that perhaps, America as a concept did not enter history until around half a millennium ago because most explorers had the same misconception that Columbus did--that is; America was Asia. Hence, while it was highly possible that multiple Europeans sailed in that direction and landed, the assumption that the land was already owned may have kept them from claiming it as a great discovery. But with international waters being a no-law zone, and hence, a potential refuge for political dissidents, it doesn't take a huge stretch of the imagination to presume a few stayed in America and concluded no large-scale government was coming to get them.

    1. This is all good stuff. The only thing I would take exception to is while I'm sure some assumed America was Asia, part of the "lost" ancient knowledge included understanding how big the earth was and therefore knew the relative positions of both continents and that they weren't the same.

      There is a reason I keep harping on the Big Three (KRS, Tucson Artifacts and Bat Creek), they are all genuine and represent European contact dating back almost two millennia. There were other cultures coming from other continents as well of course, but what an opportunity for academics to investigate and blow the doors off a treasure trove of new historical information.

      All it takes it a few brave scholars like Dennis Stanford, to step forward and get the party started.

    2. Thanks for responding.

      I have one pertinent question: If European cultures were aware of America and going there, why were the Vikings the only ones who established a (at least intended to be) permanent settlement there? Given what I've read recently, in a book called Changes in the Land (assigned in my alma mater, actually), and a more recent online article, one possible answer is that the idea of America as a pristine, desolate wilderness before white men arrived is false; the natives had laid claim to much of the land and its resources. Hence, for a while, explorers recognized them as the legitimate authorities and traded with them instead of just going and taking things themselves. But what's your theory on this?

      With regard to the history of Native Americans, a big problem is that it's possible to racist, and it's also possible to be racist in a reaction against racism. The first can be properly summarized by the anti-Native American, pro-frontiersman sentiment that got trumpeted for a while, while the second came from a reactionary, hippy-driven revision of the Natives as perfect earth-children with completely different lifestyles than the modern white Americans, which was more flattering, but just as wrong.

  40. There is too much nonsense in comments over honorary or non-recognized degrees. There are a lot of companies and organizations that hand out "honorary" degrees whether they are an educational institution or not. Holiday Inn used to do it for many employees as do many other service businesses today. Many award company bachelor's, masters, and doctorates essentially as certificates designating the individual's company achievements. Back in the mid-1990s I did a lot of work for a state government and an Assistant Commissioner of of a specific department took us to many places in the state over the course of 2 years. He had no degrees at all but had worked for about 15 years for a Federal agency before being appointed Asst Commissioner in his state. When the project got close to the end we had a special dinner where we honored that guy--it was his birthday also. But he had helped so much and really got into the project. Our company (a corporation contracted to do work in that state) printed a really nice certificate--it was an honorary "doctorate" we awarded him in his area of work. Of course it had no educational standing but that wasn't the point. It was a special way to recognize what he had done. The guy was overwhelmed by it, he actually cried. His co-workers loved the idea. He had it framed and it hung on his office wall in his state office——until he died 5 years later. I'm simply relating that such things are much more common that all these others imply. I recently saw an "honorary doctorate" on the wall of a hairdresser--it was awarded to her by the company she worked for. People need to lighten up--it's a trivial, non-relevant argument against Wolter that has no bearing on his research findings. If someone wants to challenge his research methods or conclusions go ahead, but stick to relevant issues. The personal attacks actually imply that his research is valid. It means that since you can't call his research specifics into question, all you can do is attack him personally. It's a typical skeptics' ploy when they have no evidence to challenge something.

  41. I think the word that sums up some of the skeptic's personal attack strategy is 'obfuscation.'

  42. What can you say ---- hats off to these comments. At some point the "cry babies" will get the hint. I have no mercy for them, especially the ones who profess knowledge but haven't read the books nor put in the time. The guy put in 15+ years and made it his life's work. My my my. The lack of knowledge and experience by the "noisemakers" is truly apparent and appalling.

    I can't wait for the next season to start. I am amazed at the "lead crosses". That took time, lots of space, a steady economy, and lots of people. Could it be the "Visigoths" or the "Merovingians" or even the "Donatists". All were "Christianized" at some point and fully capable of sailing. And all of them had reasons for some of their members to disappear into history. And just as important, all of them had the "engineers" and "know how" to "smelter lead". That took people.

    And of course, the really big question in all of this is -- ready ---- "Where are the bodies" and there just has to be some 1st nation "folklore" about this -- somewhere.

  43. Scott,with all due respect,you can't have it both ways.
    Being a successful business man,as a geologist,a celebrity as the host of a very popular show on a cable channel,& pretend to be the victim of a nefarious conspiracy.No one is trying to suppress and silence your "hard scientific breakthroughs".Accusing academics and scholars to engage in a malevolent grandiose orchestrated scheme,while you refuse to submit the product of your researches to proper peer reviewing,is extremely dishonest and utterly incoherent.The truth is,except for a couple of individuals associated with the skeptics and debunkers subculture,most academics and scholars have no idea who you are.

    I already told you previously (from my humble perspective) why the individuals who hold you accountable for what you do,are unimpressed by your work.This is not about the nature of the material,but about your methodology,& the individuals you associate with.

    Personally,I couldn't care less about the personal issues,I have been there and done,but it doesn't bring anything to the table.Although,these issues raise serious concerns about your credibility & legitimacy.But this is not the point.PHD`s & Master Degrees are merely pieces of paper.Going through academic or scientific training doesn't make you "inevitably" smarter,but it provides you discipline & methodology.

    Since,I am not a geologist,I shall refrain from making any comments on specific issues dealing with geology,but regarding your extravagant claims on Knights Templar and medieval history,I am sorry to say,you are completely out of your league.You don't have the basics on historiography,you don't speak the original language (ancien/vieux français),and you rely on even more preposterous third party researches (most of them are actually floppy translations of even more ludicrous materials).When was the last time you went to the institutional libraries in France.and twelve into the original archives?.

    The final nail in the coffin,there is nothing remotely original about your own researches and fantastic extrapolations.Everything you do,has already been done 20/30 years ago, by French alternative researchers,but you and your audience wouldn't know it,since you don't speak the language.

    I wish you could stop blaming everyone else but yourself.This is not a scientific endeavor,but the modus operandi of someone neck deep into the conspiracy culture & the cult of self agrandizing persecution.

  44. Tara (above, using Emma Peel alias): It's difficult to understand why your blathering nonsense is even here. Your leader, by the way, is not what you think "he" is. Go back to making your inane and mindless comments on the other blog.

    1. 1).If you go back few months ago on this very blog,I identified myself.Scott knows who is behind the Emma Peel alias.

      2) I have publicly denounced some specific attacks against Scott (the last time was only a couple of days ago).I have no horse in this race,I merely speak for myself.Scott is aware that I have engaged in personal attacks in the past.There is nothing to hide.The personal attacks and character assassination are counter-productive, & akin to intellectual terrorism.

      3) I have no "leader".The individual you mentioned is also the subject of my harsh criticism.More than often,we have strong disagreements. You probably think I am tough on Scott Wolter,but you need to read what I have to say about "debunkers and skeptics" before making the allegation that I am some type of fan girl/cheerleader for the anti Scott Wolter brigade.

      4) Scott Wolter is perfectly capable of responding to my blathering nonsense.

      5) I may have very strong disagreements with Scott,but I respect him,because contrary to most alternative and mainstream personalities,he personally responds to criticism & does not censor.

  45. Hold on now... First, if a person wants to use an alias that is their choice. Second, Emma or Tara is always welcome here as long as she doesn't say anything inappropriate or use profanity. Personally, I am glad she is going to the source (me in this case) with her questions and comments.

    With regard to some of her comments, let me start by saying we have already discussed in detail the difference between professional and academic peer review. The bottom line is my KRS geological work has been peer reviewed, in writing, by both professionals and academics and is published in both scientific report form and in my books. As I've also stated many times, criticizing the venues or protocol of my research doesn't address the crux of the issue which are the facts.

    As far as my historical research goes, I think Emma/Tara is underestimating my ability. I took five trips to Sweden between 2003 and 2005 and worked directly with the top linguists and runologists in the world along with Richard Nielsen who arguably knows more about the medieval language, runes, dialect and grammar of the KRS than the Swedish scholars. Between 2005 and 2008 I spend countless hours in the Minnesota Historical Society, flew to Oxford in the UK to conduct research, and have pored through archives of numerous libraries (public, private, and Masonic), historical societies, and private individuals. In fact, I was in France and Portugal in February doing research along with filming.

    As evidence of my KRS research, dozens of the relevant original documents, some never before seen by researchers, are published in Compelling New Evidence for the reader to consider. Quite frankly, if you knew the extent of the historical research I've done over the years I think you'd be quite impressed.

    As far as your "final nail"; here again you are off base. The Hooked X research is entirely new and brings the previously unknown and misunderstood history behind the true motivation and long-range plans of the families who founded the Cistercians/Knights Templar, along with the truth behind their activities in Jerusalem, Europe, and the Americas. This is all new and opens the door to all kinds of fresh avenues of historical research.

    Finally, I only take issue with the close-minded academics who put up road blocks, are dishonest, and do nothing but complain. There are plenty of good ones out there who understand there is much more to learn and recognize the myriad of academic opportunities just waiting to be seized.

    1. Scott.
      I am not underestimating your ability.You are very successful.It requires skills.Your are far from being an ordinary man.
      I am merely questioning your expertise on specific issues.You`d do the same if I was messing with your field (geology).
      I guess it comes down to the point,"we have the right to disagree on everything",but I hope you understand that this is not a personal feud.(I have been there and done it,but the strategy of attacking the man instead of his ideas,is unethical, unacceptable, downright absurd & counter productive).
      I have no intention on shutting you down or running with the lynch mob.I am only speaking for myself.
      Thank you for the feedback & for your courtesy.
      PS.we should have a conversation off channel,sometime.Feel free to hit me through email or Facebook,if you wish so.

  46. "Emma,"

    Perhaps the best way to describe my expertise in subject matter other than geology is to know that if I need to know something about anything I feel is important, I immerse myself into it; especially if I am motivated by what I believe is unfounded criticism. I'm sure you can imagine that's happened several times.

    You are right that we can respectfully to agree to disagree as I've done many times with several people. I try not to take things personally, but I'm not always successful. Healthy skepticism is fine and protective, but like many things in life too much of a good thing is bad. I sense fear and anger in some of the skeptics nasty comments and when the discussion becomes unproductive it's time to move on.

    Feel free to contact me anytime at

  47. Cahokia Mounds. A total mystery as to what happened to Thousands of Sedentary Mound Builders. When Marquette and Joliet went up the Mississippi, they found few Indians. Plague ? The very large numbers of Bison roaming the middle Continent were due to massive de-escalation of Hunting by Humans. This ties in.

  48. One of the stories I've heard from Ojibwe Mide' win was their Templar brethren warned that the "Christians were coming and wouldn't be good." Apparently, there was then a prophecy that said the Natives were to "abandon their cities and go wild" to have any chance of survival after contact.

    Who knows if this is true, but it dovetails with the exodus of Cahokia and the genocide perfectly and overall makes a lot of sense. Of course, it only makes sense if you buy into my 'Templar's in America before "Chris"' thesis.

  49. Scott,

    there was an episode where you were investigating a possible underwater pyramid. I found it very odd that you didnt try to use a depth gauge sonar, a feature of some fish finders to estimate how deep the bottom is, before wasting your money on submarines to find nothing. I was floored at how stupid this mistake was. You took the word of some yokel wanting his 15 minutes of fame and you didnt even do any pre-investigation into the rumors. IDK if you in a rush to shoot the show but I lost interest in your show after that.

    If you are going to pretend to be a scientist, damn well better act like one a bit more often.

  50. DTG,

    First, we knew exactly how deep the water was where we were led to. Second, this was the initial investigation and we found nothing where the underwater pyramids were supposed to be. Third, what do you know about being a scientist? Sounds to me like you're a little too judgmental and probably don't understand the scientific process as well as you think.

    I'm just saying...

  51. Quick question: There is all this blathering about "peer reviewed" articles... To your knowledge, have any geologists (or any geological research) performed an analysis on stones such as the Kensington Runestone (and finding that it a historical or recent carving--i.e. a hoax) and published such results in a peer reviewed journal?

  52. The answer is "No." In fact, the only other geologist to conduct any kind of extensive investigation into the Kensington Rune Stone was Professor Newton H. Winchell in 1909-10. He conducted relative-age weathering studies, visited the discovery site three times and concluded the following: "The said stone is not a modern forgery and must be accepted as a genuine record of an exploration into Minnesota at the date stated in the inscription."

    1. Sorry I didn't reply to the above answer, been traveling. I asked the somewhat poorly written question about whether any geologists had published about the Kensington Runestone. Your answer is what I thought. There is no reason to try to do the "peer reviewed journal" submission as 1) No matter how good it was none of the journals would issue it--they'd reject it without any investigation at all, and 2) There is really no appropriate journal. The situation reminds me of how Robert Mainfort attacked the Bat Creek Stone in the Tennessee Anthropologist in 1991. He wrote that the stone was "allegedly found" and called proponents of it "cult archaeologists" a total of 14 times in the article. He speculated that the "finder" fabricated the stone and was a drunk who was trying to get the Smithsonian to keep him employed: the approach was utter speculation combined with name calling. The Smithsonian of course, accepted Mainfort's speculation. You can't convince the skeptical archaeologists by using the "mainstream" publications. You must continue to inform the public and cite your findings.

    2. You should read the blog I wrote after our episode on the Bat Creek Stone aired:

      The Bat Creek Stone fiasco exposes the Smithsonian and their attack dogs, Mainfort and Kwas, as the frauds they are. The institution wants be allowed to dismiss their own artifacts even though the veracity of the dig was perfect, and blame their own employee. They can't pick and choose which digs are good, or fraudulent, based on what was found. They screwed this one up thinking it was a paleo-Cherokee inscription when it was realized decades later that it was, in fact, paleo-Hebrew.

      They can't put the toothpaste back in the tube this time no matter how many "official statements" or hit men they try to trot out.

  53. The Kensington Rune Stone continues to be inside a controversy, but if we pull
    back and look at its context, the 1362 date suggests it had been carved after the
    Bubonic Plague hit Europe hard, and possibly the Americas. Its location is to the
    south of the Grand Portage, and local stoneholes have been noticed nearby. If a
    code is inside and underneath the simple, surface message, is this why we see a
    mix of styles? Could the learned scribe have been part of a Tontine that may have
    been a subsequent significant trading entity in the Renaissance? I agree that there
    is an "invisible" college overlap between 1700s Freemasonry and the remnants of
    the Knights Templar order, as their descendants kept alive traditions and beliefs.
    I think the odds are very high there is a second stone within 500 to 1000 miles of
    the KRS that explains what happened to the party on their slow way back from Minnesota, I think it is not a fluke. I think they blazed a trail for others to follow.

  54. The start of Season Three of America Unearthed is November 9th?
    Are you going to give us hints about what will be on upcoming shows?
    Have you looked into the recent controversy over the Martian "femur" and
    whether NASA would bury any actual Martian Archaeological artifacts so
    deep as to sound like hyperbole in the extreme if only to hand us a tidy
    view of the universe? I know Earth Geology is your expertise, but more
    than 3.7 billion years ago Mars had oceans, we cannot rule fossils out or
    sedimentary layers. Perhaps its a good thing we simply do not let NASA
    pull things without explaining the reasons behind their actions! Just curious!


    1. The new season starts on Saturday, November 8th. As far as Mars goes, I don't know if the rover has found any fossils and if so, I'm not sure why they would hide it. The government might, but again, why?

      I'll keep my eyes and ears peeled and am very interested in what might be found on Mars.

    2. Scott, if the powers that be refuse to be truthful about what we uncover here on Earth, we can hardly expect them to take the opposite approach regarding the Moon and Mars. My 2 cents.

    3. Troutman,

      I would like to think that NASA and the space industry would handle things differently than certain elements within academia. But then, we really don't know for sure do we?

      I guess the only way we're ever going to know is if we are able to get up there and walk around ourselves. Probably won't happen in our lifetimes.

    4. Note: Its name escapes me, but there is an actual NASA document suggesting coverups as part of the protocol for discovery of alien life. From what I gather, it essentially paraphrases Lovecraft's opening monologue in The Call of Cthulhu; the assumption the writers make is that human egos simply will not accept the idea of a cosmos not revolving around them, and hence the revelation of such will will disrupt society on a very deep level. Maybe this is true, but of course, it presumes we actually have a choice in that matter. Space exploration has wound down lately, but scientific progress as a whole isn't stopping, and often is the case, this could be one of those things people just stumble onto.

    5. This is a recent phenomenon, while the document I referenced was in the space agency's infancy. The openness people have to the idea of extraterrestrial life is getting broader, as is the tendency of people to see them as wise, benevolent beings with a better idea than humanity, quite a difference from the early 20th century norm of evil invaders, but for all we know, that's exactly what governments fear now; show people a better society.

      As to the AAT, whether it leads to a positive or negative view of alien life probably depends a lot on one's view of canonized ethics and centralized power as a whole. If one chooses to look at the early civilizations with their newfound technology and infrastructure as a positive force for the advancement of mankind, then any presumed alien help is presumed also positive. But if one takes the negative view that civilization, at its onset, gained these things through pushing unnatural ideals of arbitrary inequality, veneration of kings as gods, and moral systems that stuck more questionable maxims in with the obvious reciprocal altruism, then aliens presumed to be helping that could in turn be seen at least partially as an evil force. There is undoubtedly truth in both views of early societies, and whether aliens were involved or not does little to affect the attitude one has on that.

      Still, at least the unprecedented popularity of the idea represents an advancement of society in that it proves religion is losing ground to science. Our ancestors, when confronted with outstanding things, marveled, pondered and then worshiped, but today we merely marvel and ponder.

    6. On the contrary, given the success of shows like "Ancient Aliens" it seems like most people today would be open to the existence of extraterrestrials. In some ways it feels like people welcome the idea as if it offers some kind of hope that will lead to a better future than the one we are creating for ourselves on this planet now.

      If there is life out there that has been observing us over the millennia there isn't anything to fear. It they do exist and have the technology to get here from another solar system, then they certainly have to the means to wipe us all out and could have done so by now if that was their intention.

    7. Interesting take on the alien phenomenon and it's impact on humans through time. Based on your brief analysis, I like the idea that we are moving away from the veneration of things we don't understand driven largely by fear to treating the possible existence of aliens with wonder, curiosity and inquiry.

    8. The document Anonymous references is the Brookings Report. The Ancient Aliens research is, I believe, fascinating although I think the mistake they make is not looking at the phenomenon as coming FROM Earth instead of coming TO Earth.

  55. One thing for sure is the KRS was split down from a larger slab with the second piece being possibly even larger. That second piece has never been located and could very well still be in the ground somewhere to this day. The best chance of locating it is by using sacred geometry and triangulation of known stone holes.

    If the other half was found and fit together to complete a larger land claim I wonder how the skeptics would spin that?

  56. Hi Scott,

    Glad to know season 3 is coming upon us soon. I am curious, do you think there's anything to the Hudson Valley standing stones and structures dotted along the area (and their possible celestial alignments)?

    - Will

  57. Will,

    I haven't looked into the Hudson Valley standing stones, but if they are indeed old I'm sure they do have connections to celestial alignments. Sounds like something I should take a closer look at?

  58. Scott. I appreciate and accept all of your efforts that you give us, to help better understand some of the historical accounts in which we thought were truth. History has to accept that not everything we were taught in school can hold true based off of science and ongoing research. Clearly, I am certainly convinced, Columbus was NOT the first person to discover America. The History books need to be edited and we need to teach our people, or at least put them in the know, that the discovery of America is pending, so to speak.

    1. There have been history books that say Columbus wasn't the first, and that the Norse did in fact come here which was accepted long before l'anse aux meadows was discovered. There was a history book published by a company called A.S. Barnes and Company in 1885 titled "A Primary History of the United States," and it was also mentioned in H.G Wells famous history book "The Outline of History" that the Norse most likely made it here as well. In fact Wells book had a major influence on the way modern day history books are written. So they don't have to be edited since it was already accepted.

    2. John,

      You had to dig pretty deep to find that reference. The fact that we still acknowledge Columbus Day in America means the myth is still very alive and well. Things are slowly changing, but you can bet there are plenty of books still being used in our schools that give "Chris" way more credit than he deserves.

    3. Scott, Columbus Day has less to do with the European discovery of America and more to do with the ethnic pride and political atmosphere in America when a national Columbus Day was first proposed. Columbus Day has nothing to do with our history books. As outlined by John above, it has been accepted by historians for 100 years or more that the Vikings were here long before Columbus. I suspect you and others surprised by this information WERE actually taught as much in school, but just weren't at a place in your lives where you cared to pay attention in class. Please abandon this "Everyone tells us Columbus was first" b.s. you keep going on about. By doing this you're being disingenuous, and you're intentionally creating conflict where there is none just to elevate your standing among the uneducated. Harsh words, I know. But, how can you expect intelligent people to get behind the rest of your ideas when you keep throwing out these blatantly false statements?

    4. Mr. Anonymous,

      I'll be happy to abandon the mantra when the disingenuous opponents to my own research stop with their own BS. Many academics refuse to discuss the details of my research on the KRS and other pre-Columbian artifacts in North America simply because they don't want to "believe" what the facts conclusively support.

      You sound a lot like those who want to have it both ways. To pretend the myth of Columbus has been dispelled and we've accepted the truth about our past is a complete fallacy. We have a long way to go and if people like you want me to move on, then start treating my own and others similar research with more respect. The opposing academics and debunkers have tried and failed to refute the voluminous factual evidence, so why don't they, and apparently you, change your attitude and take it seriously?

    5. Actually Scott I didn't have to dig that deep at all. The first book I mentioned was one of a few in my local library, and was actually a mandatory text for school children in the late 1800s and early 1900s. It's in local records and the local historians of my city are very well aware of it. If you mean that somebody who isn't well versed in local history and historiography like me had to dig deep then I suppose you could say that, but I wasn't even intentionally looking for it. I was just doing research for a paper I was writing and came across it.

    6. Duly noted; thanks for the clarification.

    7. Question John; where did you go to school? I'm not doubting your claims that the textbook you read acknowledging the Vikings was real, but I'd prefer if you didn't bandy about insults to those of us who didn't read it when doing so wasn't necessarily our prerogative. I grew up in quite an unenlightened redneck town with a typically poor grasp of history, and no teacher there taught about the Vikings reaching America. There may or may not have been books there that got it right, but in fact, it's supposed to be teachers who push students to read such things, and that is not what happened.

      I am not saying that my school was trying to push a white supremacist patriotic agenda, but I'm not saying they weren't, either. I am aware, of course, that the Vikings were also white, but the point is that without accepted proof they penetrated far inland, they aren't ideal role-models for manifest destiny advocates who advocate and celebrate doing just that. The United States celebration of Columbus speaks to nothing else about modern American identity that I can see, other than the spirit of driving west into the unknown and reaping the riches. So maybe many schools don't teach that he was the first to reach America, but maybe the real question is, Why devote much time to him at all? He was important to the Spanish gains in the New World; not really ours.

    8. Scott,

      I'm the same Anonymous who posted on November 5 @ 7:29 AM.

      I don't think many academics are arguing about your dating work on the KRS. Most academics don't care about your KRS dating studies. Partially because this info has been around for almost 100 years and it doesn't add anything new to the mix. You have admitted that all you did was basically recreate Winchell's work. It's not new news. And, partially because you don't publicize your detailed method of dating the stone or open your research up to a public peer review. Without the details nobody can argue intelligently as to whether or not your science is sound. So, they kind of shove you aside as a waste of time. I mean, why wouldn't a researcher open his books to his colleagues, right? Unless, or course, he had something to poor methodology. Think of it this way, if a guy you didn't know came up to you on the street and told you to go inside because it was going to start raining.....would you turn around, no questions asked, and go inside, or would you look up into the sky? You would look up, of course. No scientist is going to take you at your word. Nor should they. They want the chance to review, critique, and recreate your work to see if the same results can be reproduced. If you don't give them the opportunity to do this then you shouldn't complain that they are not giving you full attention an accolades.

      Where people really begin to take acception is when you spin this centuries-spanning, highly detailed Templar narrative. You jump to so many different Templar conclusions that you can't seem to keep them all straight. You have zero Templar evidence. The things you claim as evidence (the hooked x, the Newport Tower, the Westford Knight) are all surrounded by controversy and conflicting ideas in their own right. You can't produce one single uncorrupted piece of evidence for any of your Templar stuff. You look at things, see they look similar to other things, assume they must be related, take it as fact, then move on. This is not how reliable science is done and you know it. In fact, you are the obstacle in the way of serious study of the KRS. As long as you tie yourself and your poor methods to it, no serious researcher is going to take a look at the KRS. Guilt by association, you know.

    9. Mr. 7:29 a.m.,

      Where do you get your misinformation? First, of course our relative-age dating work has added to the data base that was consistent with Newton Winchell's work. What Professor Winchell did in 1909-10, and what I did was essentially the same, but we used methodologies that were completely different. I assume you've read both reports and know what the differences are right?

      Second, my final reports on the geological investigation on the KRS and on the tombstone relative-age dating work are both peer reviewed, in writing, and available to any serious researcher. And please stop with the condescending lectures trying to paint me into something you want to believe me to be.

      My Templar/Cistercian connection to the KRS and other artifacts is supported by voluminous factual evidence from multiples disciplines and is consistent and conclusive. Quite frankly, I'm shocked no one else put the puzzle together before me. On the other hand, since academia failed in their investigation of the KRS and other artifacts, it's not surprising they never properly got out of the starting gate. If they had used proper scientific method, checked their egos at the door, and followed the evidence trail, most importantly the various language, runes dialect and dialect aspects of the KRS inscription, it would have led them where it led me; to the only logical candidates who could have created the artifact.

      Further, if you had read my reports and my books with an open mind, you would have quickly realized how everything fits together into a logical, cohesive, and consistent historical story. It may seem impossible to you, but in fact, when viewed objectively with a full understanding of the history and the facts, you would see what it is arguably one of the most interesting and important stories in all of history.

      To be fair, I have not shared all the facts with the public yet, but the complete story is there nonetheless. Regardless, my advice to you my friend is instead of being so arrogant and dismissive, try being a little more objective and humble. Instead of guilt by association; if you and your friends had the right attitude, you might actually learn something.

      A wise man once said to me, "You never learn anything when you're talking."

  59. Shaun,

    All that is very true; I find it laughable that we were ever taught Columbus was the first. How can anyone "discover" a place that had 10 million people living there already?

    It's ridiculous...

  60. Hey scott,

    I find your show quite entertaining. I am curious though about your findings regarding the "Dare Stones." There seems to be substantial evidence that at least all but one of the stones were fake. What leads you to believe otherwise? They seem to be the basis of your Roanoke theories however you don't ever mention fully investigating all of them. What leads you to believe they weren't just a hoax?

    Thanks for your time.

  61. Ed,

    The Roanoke/Dare Stones episode is one I'd love to do a follow-up show on as we only briefly touched on the numerous inscribed stones I saw. I did have an opportunity to examine about thirty stones and was very impressed with the apparent weathering of the inscriptions and the variation in the geology of the stones. I'd like to travel to the locations where they were discovered to see if the local geology matches and if the weathering environment makes sense.

    I suspect there could be fakes in the roughly fifty stones known to exist, but anyone who thinks they know for sure is dreaming. There's too much speculation and to many assertions flying around and not enough science and testing done that can absolutely help shed more light on their possible authenticity.

  62. <<>>

    just found this on David Brody's site -- I really try to keep up here but the information is coming so fast. Have you had a chance to go forward with this since it was posted.

  63. I'm very aware of this and all I can say is stay tuned for Season 3 which premieres this Saturday night at 8:00 p.m. CST. It's going to be a great season of shows!

  64. Its been, what, a month or two since I challenged the verbal hacks to read your books and discuss them here. There is no even a squeak from them. I also bet they haven't even gone to the library and read any of the books.

    Maybe we should be discussing the books. The TV show is broken up for the commercials and then everybody runs to Wiki. A person cannot argue "facts" when your standing there holding the rock. People are having a serious problem mixing up "negotiable" history (George Washington has about 1500 books about him - poor guy, talk about being beat up) to a rune carved in a stone. Nobody here is bringing up the FACT there is a reason that "archaeology" and "history" are taught differently then "science".

    Do the hacks here even understand that the "hooked X" is on probably ALL of the Knights Templar churchs in Gotland. Do they even know where Gotland is. Have they even read up on "sacred geometry". Do they know the conversions of the "megalithic yard" ?????

    I doubt it, otherwise they would be talking about those subjects instead of this "Columbus" guy.

    1. Explorer Dave.....

      I've read all of Wolter's books and I've asked several relevant questions right here on this blog. To date, Scott Wolter, B.S. hasn't answered any of them intelligently. Instead, he dismisses them as unimportant or attacks me for having the audacity to question him.

      In fact, I'll ask again, right here in this thread so you don't have to go back and find it.......

      Scott, in your second book about the KRS, "The Hooked X", you devote an entire chapter to what you call sacred geometry and how the stone holes on the Ohman property point to the location where the KRS was found.


      1. How do you know EXACTLY where the KRS was found? Everyone can agree that it was found somewhere in the back forty on the Ohman farm, but even members of the Ohman family have been inconsistent over the last 100 years as to its exact location. And, without the EXACT location of the KRS you can't make a claim about sacred geometry.

      2. How do you know how old the stone holes are? Did you do the same kind of aging studies on the holes that you've performed on the KRS? If ANY of the stone holes in the "sacred geometrical" pattern that you propose are 150 years old or less, then this idea falls apart. To make the sacred geometry claim you first have to PROVE that the holes were made circa 1362. Without this proof it is just as likely that the holes are pioneer-age blasting holes drilled to clear farm land, or that they were laid out in a pattern deliberately by a KRS supporter in the early 1900's in an attempt to lend false-authenticity to a stone that had been denounced as a fraud.

      3. Can you please explain the concept of "sacred geometry" to me as you know it? The term "sacred" implies something holy or supernatural. For a pattern to be "magical" then each component (angles, length of lines, etc.) must have a special meaning. Can you please explain the sacredness in detail of the components of the stone hole pattern? I would also be interested if you could list the texts and sources you consulted when deciphering this pattern and what it means.

      4. It is well known that a number of the stones with holes in them have been moved from their original positions when the KRS Park was being built. If the holes in their original position were laid out using sacred geometry to point to the KRS then why didn't moving a few of the stones ruin the pattern? Sacred Geometry would have to be perfect to work, right?


    2. 5. Scott, how do you personally reconcile the fact that these stone holes, found virtually all over the country side throughout Minnesota, South Dakota, Iowa, and Wisconsin (coincidentally all great plains/agriculture states where large rocks left behind by glaciers would have to be blasted to clear farmland) never caught the attention of anyone until the 1930's......35 years or so AFTER the KRS was discovered. If these holes are ancient then wouldn't they have been a curiosity long before the 1930's, and wouldn't they have drawn special attention when the KRS was found?.

      6. It is documented that Olaf Ohman's own son claimed that he and members of his family had chiseled some if not all of the holes on the Ohman property in an attempt to clear farmland. The audio recording of this interview exists. How does that affect your sacred geometry theory? And, if you chose not to believe this first-hand account from the mouth of an Ohman, then what can we believe of the first-hand accounts of the KRS discovery?

      I think I've posed many educated questions above. None of them can be considered confrontational. I predict that Scott will attempt to answer a few (not all) of these questions, but he'll do so with broad generalities that don't really shed any light onto his discovery process. I also predict that his answers will raise more questions, and that when i ask these new questions that arise Scott will soon loose interest and ignore them. That's what seemed to happen last time. We'll see, I could be wrong.........

    3. Why is it that you and others like you refuse to use your real name? What are you afraid of? And can we dispense with the childish condescending sarcasm in future posts?

      1. The discovery site was marked for decades with a steel bar that is pictured on page 370 in my Compelling New Evidence book. The location is also clearly seen where the Ohman's plowed around the steel bar in aerial photographs taken in the 1940's and 1950's that have never been published to my knowledge. Not coincidentally, it is in the same location where the triangulation of the stone holes intersects. The consistency of the photographs and the triangulation of stone holes is conclusive in my opinion. What else can I tell you?

      2. To date, attempts to age-date the stone holes have been unsuccessful. That would of course be very important, but we have not found a technology or method of dating that works yet. However, to suggest someone tried to plant these stone to support authenticity is virtually impossible and beyond a stretch. If they were pioneer-era blast holes, how can you explain that they were never blown up? Why go to all that trouble and not finish the job? Second, are you suggesting it's a coincidence the stone hole boulders just happen to form this exact triangulation by accident? Really??

      3. All I can tell you in this regard is the concept of using mathematics, geometry, and astronomy was considered sacred knowledge. There are voluminous references to this. I don’t understand why you are so concerned with this point; help me out.

      4. The reason moving at least four stones didn't disrupt the geometry is because the Templars and Cistercians always built in redundancy, such as the double dating of the KRS inscription. These guys weren't stupid.

      5. First, I don't believe ALL the stone holes across the country, and the world are connected to the medieval cultures that were here in Minnesota. Second, I don't know why no one else has tried to explain the stone holes as I've done. Perhaps they were distracted by Hjalmar Holand's explanation of Viking era "Mooring Stones?"

      6. It doesn't affect it at all as we don't know which stones they may have, or may not have carved. The first problem is some of the stone holes are in the woods on the hill and there was no need to remove them. Second, there are a couple stone holes on the farm that are not included in the map we've published. They are highly fractured, presumably from blasting that might be the stones the son was referring to. However, why would they take the time and great energy to carve over a dozen stone holes to blast apart and then not do it? Further, why carve stone holes in four smallest boulders with holes and then decide to move them into the ditch?

      The most parsimonious explanation is we have examples of both medieval stones holes that triangulate and a few circa 1900 era stone holes that were blasted. BTW; there are two arguments against carving stone holes for blasting. One is the stone hole diameter of less then I” is too small for dynamite used at that time. Second, there is no need to cut a stone hole for blasting. Typically, they would place the stick of dynamite on the top of the boulder and pack it with mud. This apparently directs the energy of the blast into the rock. I haven’t seen this done before, but this is what I was told by a retired farmer who had blasted rocks on his own farm.

      Your move...

    4. What does my real name have to do with anything? I ask valid questions that you should be prepared to answer to support your claims. If I were to give you my real name and background then you'd be tempted to attack me personally or dismiss me without addressing the questions I raise. I notice you're not too upset when your supporters post anonymously.....I have a hard time believing that "Explorer Dave" is someone's birth name.

      My move.....

      1. Thank you for FINALLY answering this question. Now that I know which of the various proposed discovery locations you're using I have a better understanding of what you're talking about. I'm curious though, if these photos of the iron bar and the plowing around them were never published, why wouldn't you include them in your book?

      2. So, basically you're going with your gut on the stone hole triangulation theory. You can't date the holes so you can't really know for sure how old they are. And, your sentence above, "Second, are you suggesting it's a coincidence the stone hole boulders just happen to form this exact triangulation by accident? Really??", doesn't make sense to me. If some of the stone boulders have been moved in modern times then who's to say if the original pattern of the holes pointed to the KRS discovery site or not. Wouldn't it be just as much of a stretch to assume that ONLY the redundant stones in your theory were the ones to be moved?

      3. In this paragraph you have revealed absolutely nothing about your understanding of "sacred geometry". This makes me the stone hole triangulation theory your invention or did you borrow it from someone else who might know a little more about these "sacred geometry" techniques. I asked for references, and your reply is that there are plenty of them......yet, you fail to mention even one by title/name that YOU used. Makes me sincerely wonder if you know what you're taking about on this particular subject.

      4. Easter Table dating is pretty impressive. However, you're comparing apples and oranges here. Can you point to one other stone hole triangulation/"sacred geometry" pattern that has been proven to have been used by the Templars that resulted in the discovery of any other important finding? If this idea has validity, then it would have had to have been used several times, right? I mean, what good would stone hole triangulation have been half way around the globe if future parties lucky enough to find themselves in the same area didn't know enough about it's use at home to recognize it for what you claim it was? Just ONE other example is all I'm asking for....

    5. cont.....

      5. Are you publicly stating here on your blog that you are the ONLY person to your knowledge who up to the point when "The Hooked X" was published has proposed that the stone holes on the Ohman property might have something to do with the KRS and sacred geometry? I just want some clarification on this before I ask more questions.

      6. You admit you do not know which or even how many of the stone holes on the Ohman property were carved by the Ohman's. I commend you for your honesty here. But, certainly you have to see that without this knowledge you can't even begin to theorize what if anything these holes mean, let alone hang an entire detailed Templar/Jesus theory on it. Further, if you knew that the Ohman's had chiseled some holes on their property why would you hide this knowledge from your followers? You don't mention anything about this in your books.

      In conclusion, I warn all of your followers.....please, read Scott's responses carefully and judge for yourself as to whether or not there is any meat there. He argues forcefully and confidently, and his charisma makes him a very likable figure. But, is he really presenting proof and reproducible support for his claims, or is he making some unsubstantiated leaps? I'm not saying he's wrong. In fact, I would love for him to be right. And maybe he is. But, without concrete proof his claims cannot be considered as a replacement for accepted history. Let's assume the KRS is authentic, and that his dating work is valid. There is a huge leap to be made from Europeans circa 1362 carving a stone in Minnesota to Templars circumnavigating the globe and claiming land for a nation that didn't exist in order to protect a Jesus bloodline that has some provenance issues of its own.

      If history as we've been taught is wrong now, as Scott suggests, how would bringing these unproven claims into the fold make history any more correct?

    6. First, I don't resort to personal attacks pal. I've experienced them for a long time and it only weakens the attacker/debunker, not me, or you since I would never resort to that nonsense. I might attack your arguments, but not you personally.

      1. The aerial photographs didn't come into my possession until after the Hooked X was published. Now that you've suggested it, I might feature them in a future publication.

      2/3/4. Actually, the triangulation was my wife's idea initially. It came to her after reading Erling Haagensen's book (here's your reference to sacred geometry), "The Templar's Secret Island." You should check that book out. When I met Erling several years ago, I pointed out to him when the midline of his Bornholm geometry is extended north-northeast runs right through the Cistercian Abbey of Roma on the Island of Gotland. Another coincidence?

      5. As far as I know, yes.

      6. I've walked the property with members of the Ohman family many times and we've discussed these stone holes at length. There is disagreement about how much if any dynamite was used on boulders at the farm. I go back to the point of why anyone would go to the extreme effort to chisel stone holes for blasting and then not blast them. Further, there is no need to chisel the holes for blasting in the first place. Regardless, the triangulation is there, the four out of place stone holes are in the ditch and explained, and the three that are left make an equilateral triangle marking the geometry for the planned future party. They obviously did not return which I suspect was due to permanent alteration of plans due to the plague ravaging Europe at the time.

      It all fits, is consistent and in my view, conclusive. You don't have to agree with me which is your prerogative.

      Anything else?

  65. Dave,

    All of this evidence isn't going away and will only be added to as time and the research goes on. Imagine the additional progress that could be made if the opponents put their energy into helping solve the problem instead of constantly throwing sand in the gears.

    Not only is the Hooked X evidence opening new doors not thought possible only a few years ago. The most important examples have yet to be made public. Stay tuned and remember this post. When it does come out, the skeptics won't know what to do.

  66. As a historian in the medieval field, I simply can't tie together your argument about a continuation of the Knights Templar and the KRS. Yes, runestones have been found. Obviously somebody carved things in them. Yes, the markings resemble some sort of Germanic-influenced language set. Still, this doesn't point matter-of-factly towards a trans-Atlantic migration of remnant Templars. We can suppose about these things all day long, but there is still an absence of evidence linking ANY of these things to a proven Templar subsect.
    We need to see an absolute. We need a primary source which corroborates, preferably more than one. While your arguments remain interesting, I hope you can see your way clear of bashing academics who only want concrete evidence which fits the schema, and which requires a thesis to be argued with complete ideas informed by primary sources. Ultimately, as I said before, your ideas are valid... but they simply cannot be represented as a new history without those primary sources.
    Once again, your efforts are appreciated. However, you'd serve yourself best by refraining from calling them histories. You might give Burrow's "A History of Histories" a read. I think it will give you a positive view of properly written histories.

  67. I understand the difficulty of having to make a complete mind-shift in thinking from what your long-time understanding of classic medieval history must be. However, the evidence trail from Europe to North America by the well-financed and technologically advanced ideological descendants of the 'leadership' of the Cistercian/Templar orders is unmistakable.

    The KRS, Spirit Pond, and Narragansett Rune Stones are some of the critical documents consistent with this history. The problem academics have had is the KRS is filled with allegory, codes, and symbolism beyond the message written in Old Swedish. Without an understanding of this secret knowledge, making complete sense of the messages is impossible. It would be nice if the Scandinavian scholars I have interacted with would admit they are dealing with something they don't fully understand and try listening instead of dismissing. Their egos won't allow them to admit both they and their predecessors were simply wrong.

    Keep in mind the ideological differences these people embraced (symbolized by the Hooked X and very ancient) were likely the core reason (in addition to money and power) the Templars were put down in 1307, and not coincidentally, directly led to the decline of the Cistercians who were the “brains” behind the movement. The monarchies of Europe, and the Church had had enough, but the bloodline families had already (beginning in the early twelfth century according to the Natives) secretly established sanctuaries in North America by exploiting their strategic alliances with various northern Algonquin tribes who embraced a similar ideology. This was the key, and if you read my latest book, “Akhenaten to the Founding Fathers”, you'll see the factual evidence I present in the comparison of rituals that supports this thesis.

    Remember, these orders operated in the strictest of secrecy for obvious reasons, so you need dig a lot deeper and look at unconventional sources to find the facts. Delving into the world of symbolism, allegory, codes, signs and tokens was very difficult for this straightforward geological laboratory scientist, but it was the key to unlocking the door to making headway with this history.

    I've had a lot of help from conventional and non-conventional sources. Including people from organizations you never heard about. This may sound trite, but trust me, I know what I'm talking about.

    There will be documents coming forward in the near future that are more conventional. As you can imagine, these reports and heretical (according to the Church, but they have enough problems to deal with now) documents are highly sensitive. However, I've also reached the conclusion that now is the time for them to come out.

    I don't know if there is such a thing as "properly written histories." The facts are consistent with whatever they support no matter how it is written.

    I suggest you read David King’s, “Ciphers of the Monks” (2001) to get a sense of the use of sophisticated coded communication of the medieval Cistercians in what is now Germany.

  68. checked on that book -- looks like I'm going to have to save a little -- WOW -- 150 bucks --

    for our history teacher, I have a small book he should look at below -- Alice Beck Kehoe (the mission of Paul Knudson in N.A. and also the A.D. 1000 tuberculosis epidemic)

  69. <<>>>

    "YIKES" --- I wonder if he even realizes that we known each other since 2009.

    1) have each others phone numbers
    2) addresses
    3) email addresses
    4) and of course there are the phone calls to go with the phone numbers (since 2009)

    the reason I use that name is because of "cranks" that don't know where to stop, high school brats who are put up by their teachers to become internet trolls, and just generally people who go after other people because of their internet name.

    Lastly, have you had a chance yet to check into the runes of Gotland, most especially, the "Doted R" and the "Hooked X". you are spinning your wheels on just one rune. Start checking into the history of the "Doted R".

    Also, as a teacher I would think you would have a working knowledge of statistics. Here are some conditions to think about.

    1) what are the chances of that old farmer with 36 hours of education when he was 5-6 of coming up with the "hooked X" -- exactly the same one in Gotland that the "medieval experts" denied even existed in their backyard.

    2) same goes for the "doted R'.

    put the two together and this farmer must have been an incredible genius to outsmart them for 100 years. Especially, when they didn't even KNOW they existed.

    just saying (smiles)

    1. Dave,

      At this point, nobody is seriously accusing Olof of carving the inscription anymore. He repeatedly denied involvement throughout his life and there is no factual evidence he had anything to do it. The geology, the runes, dialect, grammar, and language prove the inscription is medieval and prove Olof was telling the truth all along.

      It's also true that nobody in the late 19th century, including none the Scandinavian scholars had the knowledge to carve the inscription. It's ridiculous to think a poorly educated immigrant farmer could have.

  70. At last -- progress. The next question is going to be "Who had the wherewithal to do such a thing". It wasn't any "colonist". It wasn't anybody who was living at the time the stone was found. So what your saying then is "all these experts now are in line to authentic the "stone". I think your wrong. When the Smithsonian stands up and publicly states they have been in error, then we go forward. They sell Scott's books in the bookstore at the Smithsonian and they invite Scott for a recorded session.

    So far you haven't mentioned any of the symbols found in Gotland. They are there. These chapels (churches) are certified and build by the Knights Templar (Cistercian). Who else would have known about the Easter Calendar, the temples of Gotland and the Hooked X and Doted R are in both of them. Their is no one. To believe the story the Knights were illiterate is a bogus argument. In today's language, I would think they were "Blackwater" on steroids. Do you really think they were just a bunch on European cowboys riding around the Mediterranean acting like religious zealots. Some were. But where are all the rest. Sanford Holst writes about the "green shirts". Another side of the coin. And he had access (like Scott) to unpublished and secret documents for his work.

    Perhaps you should do doing some reading also of Stanford Horst. This is a very very large puzzle and the Kensington Stone is but one signpost.

  71. Haters are sad is all. They have nothing in their lives to give happiness so they want to bring others down so they don't feel lonely. I'm watching your show now on TV! I like this episode about the vikings. I believe all kinds of things, some very different then others, even you Scott but that's OK. We all should beeentitled to believe what we want. If I want to say hey my belief in polar reversal is possible in objects and is induced a combination of sound frequency and magnect field generating is true... I can say that. So keep up the good work... we like your show. And everyone is entitled to their own beliefs. And the ones who don't question and live by faith in others words..... good for them, I bet life is much easier for them.

  72. Scott Wolter! I think your cool and I like your show! :) I believe your ideas because, well, why not? All kinds of things are possible we once thought were not... Scott I see it as your one of the many people who prove the world isn't flat and you never know what's just around the next bend...

    1. Thanks for the kinds words; you're absolutely right we don't know what around the next bend. The only way to know is to get up and go take a look!

  73. Scott, as for the Welsh in America first, this is a great place to start with your research.

  74. I think there are simply a lot of jealous people. I love the show and you bring a lot to it. I'm watching the David Crockett one tonight. I think you are right that he survived. Santa Ana was a little flippy in the head. My uncle 5 generations back, Col. Benjamin Rush Milam died in the battle of Goliad...He was one of the first CIA agents for the US (is how I liken it)...he spent times befriending Santa Ana while in jail in Mexico...Santa Ana would then look the other way as he "escaped." He was able to give Tyler a LOT of strategic information to help gain Texas from Mexico. Santa Ana did favor some and let some live...

  75. That's very interesting about Santa Anna. I think you'll like the blog I just posted about last night's show. Feel free to comment there if you have any more info about your ancestor.

  76. I think your great and I love the show! Where can a person who is new to all these shocking revelations find accurate info? Any good blogs or websites to follow?

  77. Hi Tessa,

    Glad you're enjoying the show and welcome the never-ending mysteries of American history both before and after Columbus.

    Depending on the subject matter, looking for accurate information is difficult. I don't consider blog sites reliable at all and with regard to pre-Columbian history Wikipedia is the worst of all. Call me bias, but I think you'll definitely get objective feedback here. Having said that, I think the best thing to do is pick your subject and do your own research.

    What mystery are you most interested in?

  78. I would urge all who post to this Blog to use your name and not "Anonymous".
    Mr. Wolter uses his real name and takes credit and responsibility for his comments, you all should do likewise.

  79. Scott, whether or not history is right or wrong, I certainly can appreciate someone that's not willingly drinking the kool-aid just because that's what's being offered. I've always thought that history looks at the past in the most convenient light that can explain it. If one doesn't believe what we've been spoon fed for the last 200 or 300 years is way off,,, just go back and read a 1950s history book from elementary school, you could highlight so many topics that are incorrect one would run out of ink!

  80. Paul,

    Remember, this whole journey for me started 15 years with my geological work on the Kensington Rune Stone which I knew nothing about at the time. I also didn't know about certain areas of "forbidden history" within academia. For me, it was and always will be about the factual evidence. That evidence tells a vastly different story about not just American history, but world history.

    Many people have said these news facts will mean they'll have to re-write the history books. To that I say, "Then re-write them."

  81. I feel today's rewriting is still not correct, well, yea they are, politically. Sad. I'm glad your out there scott, if we as humans didn't have the audacity to question the status quo we would still be flinging poo at the cave walls.

  82. Enough said on that. In your TV program you said that you were interested in receiving info on anything of interest. OK. So, how can you be contacted by email?

  83. Scott, wow I think you've been a champ about any and all negativity people throw at you. Strange when you are in the spotlight how many people are chomping at the bit to attack you. I may just be your biggest supporter and opposer at the same time;). I love that you are bringing to light all these things that history books don't include and schools don't teach. Some one has to. It's just going to be a while until the rest of your "academics,'' as I think you would call them, catch up and perhaps take the time to research and verify all these things for themselves (if any of them even try). You are right, no one wants to rewrite the books and admit to being wrong this whole time! I am not an expert on ANYTHING you talk about in your shows so that's all i'll say about that. Here's the opposition, I am a Christian who has found something I can never let go of- Jesus. I know your opinions on Him and they kinda break my heart a little (ok a lot). The one area I believe I have some knowledge in is my wonderful God. Before you think you have him all figured out take some time and search Him out for yourself. God knows each and every one of us and he knows exactly how to answer the question of "are you real? and is Jesus who he said he is?" I asked, he answered and now I know. You can't use intelligence or some scientific formula. "Since God in his wisdom saw to it that the world would never know him through human wisdom, he has used our foolish preaching to save those who believe.'' 1 Corinthians 1:21. If you really search him out and find nothing, you will have lost nothing. But if you don't search and find out too late that He's been there all along, you might loose everything. Anyway, please keep doing your research on our history. It may take time, and hopefully more than just you be willing to step out, but the rest of us will catch up eventually. In the broad grand scheme of things, people need to understand it can't all be up to one man to figure everything out OR get it all right. Last tidbit, what ever you do in life, do it well and with integrity. And always be humble and ready to admit when you are wrong. Builds character:). Hope you are well, Liz

    1. Liz,

      I'm sure that God understands who I am and what I'm doing. I mean no offense in my pursuits so I think I'll be fine. However, I do appreciate your genuine concern. As for some of the skeptics who get a little nasty, it really doesn't bother me. I try to look for the pearls in their arguments and see if they have any merit. There's no doubt I'm missing a lot of things and welcome any helpful input.

      As I've said before, most of the criticism is simply requests for more information. People have a myriad of ways of expressing themselves and sometimes you have to wade through a little muck to get heart of the matter.

    2. Thank you for writing Scott, very kind of you. Can't wait to see new episodes. I think one of my favorites is the one on the chamber found in Pennsylvania, how bizzare!! Good luck in your research. And although I don't know you, you seem to be someone that will remain in my prayers. Thanks for being willing to "wade through a little muck" to get to the bottom of things. And by the way I think Paul Jay has an excellent point about the eyewitness's to Jesus. Doing a show on that would definitely being stepping outside of anyone's safety zone! Be well and Merry Christmas:)

  84. God made explorers too I say. Maybe one day you'll do a show on the actual eyewitness's that were not friendly to Jesus but nonetheless historically wrote about him, his miracles, and his transcendence after the crucifixion like Flavius Josephus, Pliny the elder and the younger Pliny. None of these historians working on behalf Christianity- in fact the eyewitness Flavius Josephus was working as a historian for the Roman Senate- Christs sworn enemy! Just a rant but a valid one.

  85. Hi Valerie,

    What's your area of expertise?

  86. Can you give a more in depth answers to anon's #2

    2. So, basically you're going with your gut on the stone hole triangulation theory. You can't date the holes so you can't really know for sure how old they are. And, your sentence above, "Second, are you suggesting it's a coincidence the stone hole boulders just happen to form this exact triangulation by accident? Really??", doesn't make sense to me. If some of the stone boulders have been moved in modern times then who's to say if the original pattern of the holes pointed to the KRS discovery site or not. Wouldn't it be just as much of a stretch to assume that ONLY the redundant stones in your theory were the ones to be moved?

  87. Your know the answer to these questions; you're simply being obstinate on purpose. The stone hole theory is consistent and in my view conclusive. You don't agree, have expressed your view, so move on.

  88. I am not the same Anon that posted the above question. I really don't feel as though you answered this part:

    And, your sentence above, "Second, are you suggesting it's a coincidence the stone hole boulders just happen to form this exact triangulation by accident? Really??", doesn't make sense to me. If some of the stone boulders have been moved in modern times then who's to say if the original pattern of the holes pointed to the KRS discovery site or not. Wouldn't it be just as much of a stretch to assume that ONLY the redundant stones in your theory were the ones to be moved?

    Does this not throw a huge monkey wrench into your work? When you string together a number of presumptions then you must realize that when one presumption falls, they all fall? Serious question...Thanks Scott

  89. Why go to all the trouble of differentiating which anonymous you are and simply use your real name? The reason is obvious.

    What part of the statement don't you understand? The four smallest boulders that are clearly on the lower edge of the field and the rest are larger boulders with stone holes the family said they were never moved. That's it there is nothing more to it.

    No it does not throw a monkey wrench into anything; my thesis stands just as tall as before. Seriously.

  90. Mr. Wolter, you are in the right direction this may help you
    not all new discoveries are an accident. America is were you should be looking

  91. Hello Scott,
    your application of geology and the scientific method to address topics that most scientists fear is brave and inspiring. You never accept what people feed you until you analyse it thuroughly, you do your homework and it shows. I'm a senior of biochemistry premed but I have a certificate in environmental geographic information systems so when you talk topography I know your the real McCoy ( I'm also an army veteran). I know for a fact that we are not given the whole story pertaining to our history and more offen than not intentionally missled, so I'm glad that pioneers of truth like you exist. You find some fakes and expose them after analyses this substantiates things that can't be explained easily and forces young and old alike to ask questions and open new discussion about what truth is and how to ascertain a more complete history. Thank you for asking the hard questions and investigating.

    To all the haters of Scott, go do something more useful than trolling a geologist, for example target politicians whom claim climate change is not real. Make a difference or become a geologist and go search for the truth on your own with your anonymous degree.



  92. Devin,

    I appreciate the support and that you are obviously paying attention to what happens in the show. If forensic science is applied properly, and after 30 years of running a materials forensic laboratory I think I know how to do that, the factual evidence will take you to the truth; whatever it is. I've said many times the fakes reveal themselves quickly while the real stuff, like the Kensington Rune Stone, keep hanging around.

    I don't believe the haters really have contempt for me as a person because they have never met me. I'm pretty easy to get along with. What they hate is the sacred paradigm they dogmatically defend is crumbling and they refuse to admit they were wrong. Time and again I've seen scholars, and non-scholars, strive desperately at times to be "right" instead of getting the "right answer."

    The biggest reason we have this twisted historical mess boils down to problems of the human condition. I personally believe we can work around these problems and get our history sorted out.

  93. Scott, I want to say I love the show and support you and the many others that are trying to find the truth. I wish you good luck on your future adventures.

    1. Anonymous,

      Thank you; your support is sincerely appreciated.

  94. Stan,

    Glad you're enjoying the show. You might want to catch my new show, "Pirate Treasure on the Knights Templar", on History Channel this Saturday night at 8 & 9 p.m. Central time.

  95. You're a quack. Show the degree certificate, then I'll believe it. If there's no picture, it didn't happen. Instead you decided to show pictures of you with the professors. That's a technique used by scam artists to show they are legit.

    You are very inventive in creating stories about fake degrees, planted treasures and myths. Stick to that. Create a myth about yourself, by all means, but remember, we aren't dumb.

    By the way, your show sucks.

    1. Anonymous,

      I'm sorry you feel that way. No one has a gun to your head; feel free to turn the channel and move on with your life.

  96. I have been watching the History Channel hosted by Scott Wolter. I enjoy the theories presented by Scott and also by him trying to provide proof as well. Not all history is true...we are taught to believe what already has been written which may be out of date. On some of the more religious aspects like Jesus, Mary M. having children etc...more like Angles & Demons book/movie would raise some eyebrows. If presented as a theory fine; really this theory has not been proved by anyone is an interesting theory. It's not what I've been taught as a Catholic, and doesn't follow bible teachings, as we know them. There are many theories that can be explored and I like the search and attempt to prove...and who knows...some may pan out. I enjoy the show and the push for more evidence. Some people are staunch in their beliefs and history and don't want anyone to shatter those beliefs. I'm open especially to people coming to America before Columbus. That doesn't seem hard to fathom. Also enjoy the Knights Templar and Freemason connection...although I wouldn't join their organization.

    1. Anonymous,

      What you were taught as a Catholic isn't all true, the fact there are bones in the Jesus/Yeshua ossuary is highly problematic for the Catholicism. Yet it shouldn't be for followers of the faith. Why should it matter if his soul rose to heaven that his mortals remains should also? It isn't necessary and frankly, didn't happen; so what? Does it really change anything? I don't think it does.

      As far as Freemasonry goes, before deciding if it's an organization you would or wouldn't join, you might want to try visiting a Lodge or talking with a Freemason to learn more about it. I suspect the Church has influenced your thinking about the Craft. If you were not told the truth about Jesus, whey would they tell you the truth about Masonry? Some of the most enlightened Freemasons I've ever met were Catholic priests.

      Just saying...

  97. Honestly I believe what we do not know far outweighs what we know as fact.

    1. Paul,

      I agree with you on that point!

    2. Sent you a connection request on LinkedIn

    3. Paul,

      Don't recall seeing it, but I'll take another look.

  98. Bill Cosby has been the recipient of nearly 60 honorary degrees — everything from fine arts, music, education, and law — since his ascent into the world of comedy and acting in the 1960s. They are, like all honorary degrees, worthless.
    Why would you use them to legitimize your credentials? It seems contrary to the cause.

    1. Whitecollar,

      First, I have never used the honorary degree I received for anything. It was something I never mentioned until an on-line debunker miss-leadingly tried to portray me as falsely claiming I was given an honorary degree. As I wrote above, the honorary degree was given to a struggling young man as a way of boosting his confidence for completing a task, my first book, they felt was worthy of recognition. I was proud to receive it then and I am still proud of it today.

      Honorary degrees are nothing more than a pat on the back for a job well done. That's it. And as we've seen with things like the Kensington Rune Stone, all the PhD's in the world haven't been able to figure out the inscription to this day.

      I get that proves your point doesn't it?

  99. Mr. Wolter

    I truly enjoy your show. It and Ancient Aliens are the only ones i watch on History, but why does everyone seem to be insulting you and questioning you? I just can't understand why they can't sit back, think deeply, and enjoy the show? Thanks and i hope you keep making seasons. P.S. i visited the Judacalla Rock in NC after i saw that episode, what an amazing artifact.

    1. Hi Ben,

      When people cannot attack the evidence, they attack the individual and their credibility. Certain debunkers are being paid by someone, but their attacks only tell me I'm on the right track.

      Judaculla is an amazing artifact and that one I believe is all Cherokee.

  100. Oh Scotty Scott, Scotterino, Scotteroo,

    "Even though I responded to the post explaining how and why I received the degree..." The point is that you did NOT "receive the degree" and all the subsequent kicked-puppy hurt blathering is just a smoke screen. But an endlessly entertaining smoke screen.