Saturday, January 24, 2015

"Venus Families" founded the Cistercians and Knights Templar.

Steve and Anita St. Clair, Alan Bulter, and Janet and Scott Wolter pose along the swollen Seine River in Paris, France.

The five-pointed star of Venus in the Rose Window at Eglise Saint Remi  Chapel in Troyes, France.  It was the Monotheistic Dualism ideology of the "Venus Families" of France that prompted them to found the Cistercian and Knights Templar orders. 

This life-size sculpture of the "Entombment of Christ" was ordered by Francois Jarradin, Commander of the Hospitallers, in 1531. After residing in the Knights Templar commandery at Reims until it was destroyed during the French Revolution in 1792, it was moved to St. Remi Cathedral in 1803.  The close-up shows the still bleeding wound of Jesus after the crucifixion. 

One of several AVM's in stained glass in the Church at the Templar Commandery at Arville, France.

Scott, Steve St. Clair and Alan Butler, pose for a photo inside the Church at the Templar Commandery at Arville, France.  Is it a coincidence that a statue of Jesus is directly behind Steve?

A kaleidoscope of "M" signs adorn Mary encircled with twelve angels in this painting hanging inside the Church at the Templar Commandery at Arville, France. 

The top line of the chevron, carved next to the hoax runic inscription with the Hooked X, after I cleaned the mud out that had been rubbed into the groove to cover up it's freshly made appearance.  The mud covering up the hoaxer's handiwork can be clearly seen  in lower angled line of the chevron.    

I nearly jumped out of my chair when I first saw the photos of the serpent-style runic inscription with the Hooked X at the top.  My eyes could hardly believe what I was seeing.  I thought then this is 'too good to be true' and as it turned out, it was.  At the time, the inscription with the date of 1206 in Roman numbers, seemed to make a lot of sense.  Regardless, despite the skepticism I had at the time, I knew I had to get out there as quickly as possible to examine it. I called Andy and Maria Awes at Committee Films and said, "I'm going out there ASAP.  If you want to go with me, you better get things together quickly because I'm not waiting."  To their credit, they juggled their busy shooting schedule and off we went.  When we arrived at the site, because of how tight the shooting schedule was, I had to wait until lunch break to sneak off so I could examine the inscription carefully and uninterrupted off-camera.  I had already noticed what looked like mud in the grooves, but it wasn't until I used my toothbrush and bottled water to clean the mud out, that the cold, dark cloud of reality hit me this carving was a deliberate hoax designed to try and trick me.  Thinking about it a year and half later, I still get pissed off about it.

The trip to France with Janet, Steve St. Clair and his wife Anita, and Alan Butler, was truly a once-in-a-lifetime experience that turned out to be better than any of us could have imagined.  We arrived early to visit locations we knew we wouldn't have time for with the crew while shooting, and discovered a number of things that furthered our Cistercian/Templar research immensely.  We found so many new and interesting things that this planned single episode turned into the two-part adventure you just saw the beginning of.  I hope the larger than normal number of photos I posted this week will spark questions from those who read this blog as I could have written several paragraphs about each one.  I also hope this episode has opened the eyes of our viewers to some of the signs, symbols and tokens used by the Venus Families and their supporters, such as the five-pointed star, the "M" sign, AVM, the Fleur des les, the Cross of Lorraine, and the Hooked X, that are hidden in plain sight both in Europe and North America!    


  1. I've just watched the first part of this episode and find the whole subject of the Templars and the "Holy Grail" intriguing. I have no doubt numerous persecuted peoples journeyed to pre-Columbian North America in search of a safe haven, and I suspect they are well represented in the bloodline of many a Native American. The question I wish someone, perhaps you, would answer is, why should it matter, in the 21st century, if Jesus was married and had children? I personally find it more unbelievable that a 30 year-old 1st century Jewish man, devine or not, wouldn't be married. I understand why the 13th century church would perceive a threat should it have been made known at the time, but now? I remain open-minded.

  2. Public Educator,

    The answer is it depends on your viewpoint. People of strong Roman Christian faith will be offended based on their religious teachings which are not supported on fact. That is their choice of course.

    People who are more pragmatic about this history generally don't have a problem with Jesus being married and having children. It's a simple, straightforward and perfectly logical to me; or put another way, "It's the way world works."

    1. Thank you for your reply. I suppose the final answer to the question must be that logic never interferes with entrenched beliefs! It appears that many of your detractors fit that mold.

      As you may surmise from my handle, I am a teacher. It is incumbant upon me to share proovable fact, yes -- but I feel it is just as important, perhaps even more important to share theories. It is theory, after all, that sets lifelong learning in motion.

      Getting to the next question -- If Jesus was married and had a child (and I don't at all discount that possibility), how did the Templars come to have that knowledge? They didn't organize for a millenium after Jesus lived. The life and death of Jesus was barely a blip on the radar in the ancient Middle East, less so in the wider world. To the best of my knowledge, only a handful of testemonies ever existed that were written by his contemporaries, and whether by innocent omission or devious intent, his marital status was neither positively confirmed nor poitively denied. I suppose what I'm asking is, isn't it possible that the early church created his "biography" through simple ignorance, and then dug in their toes centuries later once they had established wide-reaching political power? Did there ever exist a document, written contemporaneously that would put the question to rest? And if such a document ever existed, how would it have come into the possession of the Templars a thousand years later?

      So many questions. Keep digging, Mr. Wolter, I'm genuinely riveted and want to know so much more!

    2. Public Educator,

      I expound on why the Templar's knew all of this in my latest book. The simple answer is the Venus Families are the bloodline descendants of Jesus and MM who knew the truth all along, but kept it secret until they initiated the First Crusade. Their mission was to secure the perimeter of Jerusalem under the guise of fighting for the Church. The LEADERSHIP of the Cistercians/Knights Templar knew the true plan was comprised of two parts. The first mission was to dig under the Temple Mount to recover the artifacts, gold, scrolls, maps and technology. The second mission was to enter the tomb of the Royal Family in Talpiot to recover the remains (and shrouds) of their ancestors J & MM as insurance against the Church.

      Watch next week's episode and this will make more sense.

    3. Of course I'll be watching -- or my DVR will be recording! I have thoroughly enjoyed you series from the beginning. I'll be looking into your books as well. Thank you again.

    4. If anyone is interested, I sign all books bought off my website. However, you can buy them a little cheaper on Amazon.

    5. As a Public Educator, you may want to brush up on the differences between "theory" and "hypothesis" before you use these words in the classroom while teaching my children. Scott's Templar ideas as a whole may qualify as a somewhat disjointed hypothesis, but in no way does it meet the criteria of a theory.

    6. Anonymous,

      It sounds to me like your response is emotionally driven. defines a theory as: "A proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact."

      I respectfully disagree with your accusation Public Educator is misusing the word, "theory" in this discussion. I would be thrilled to have my children's educators with a mind as open as Public Educator.

    7. Scott, a theory arises from repeated observation and testing. A cogent theory also incorporates facts, laws, predictions, and tested and accepted hypotheses.

      Lets break that definition down in regard to your Templar ideas....

      1. Repeated observation? Nope. Your ideas are based on your observations alone. Many of which are such great leaps that no one else can or would repeat them without you leading them to your conclusions via your books or television show.

      2. Testing? Nope. You haven't done any real testing at all. Sure, you can make the claim that you "tested" the inscription on the KRS and on the Bat Creek Stone, but without corroboration (uh oh, here's where your dismissal of the widely accepted practice of peer review actually holds your ideas back from gaining any kind of real acceptance) nobody can or should accept just your word on this.

      3. Incorporates facts? No! You do little if any fact checking. What really blows my mind is that you are never able to find any credible expert in any field that agrees with even a single aspect of your Templar ideas. Alan Bulter as a Templar expert? C'mon!! There are real Templar experts in the world who DON"T believe the moon was made by time-traveling Masons from the future. Go talk with one of them!

      4. Laws? Not really.

      5. Predictions? You make plenty of these, but none of them ever seem to come true. Maybe because you are missing #'s 1-4, so there is no real ability to make informed predictions.

      6. Tested hypotheses that are widely accepted? Not a one! Unless, of course, you use sales numbers of Dan Brown fiction as an indicator of acceptance.

      So, as you see, your Templar storyline does not rise to the definition. You have put forth an unproven hypothesis that is not grounded in fact and is pieced together using portions of many stories all of which have been debunked over the last 100 years. Your hypothesis is based on visual observation without the benefit of context provided by knowledge of established fact about the subject matter.

      There is nothing about your Templar narrative that rises to the level of theory. Sorry. Heck, it might not even rise to the level of hypothesis now that I think about it.


    8. Respectfully???

      If you’re going to come on here with an arrogant, know-it-all attitude to criticize my research and scientific work, the least you could do is identify yourself. Why should I waste my time responding if you can’t show even a little decency and respect to the readers of this blog and to me? It’s obvious from this post you are a time-wasting debunker who doesn’t care about the truth or an honest discussion and I’m tired of it.

      You’ve expressed your opinion, now please take your negativity to another blog where you can waste other people’s time. You’re welcome to come back when you change your attitude and put a name behind your comments.

    9. Hi Scott

      At the risk of being baited I thought I'd toss in my two cents. My interest is in helping another seeker based on your statement that study of the Templars was your life's work (passion). We also have a couple of mutual friends in the Twin Cities.

      My own Work has led me to believe that the elusive Templar treasure is the Son of Man. Their stated purpose was "to rebuild the Temple of Solomon". Sol, Son, Sun all the same, Solomon is the Soul of Man, otherwise known as the Son of Man. The temple is modeled after the Great Pyramid in the Giza necropolis and has been rebuilt in America. It contains all the measures of a Holy (whole) man or "Earth measures".

      The reason we don't see it is because we ARE it. The stones of the temple are us, the American people. All hewn stones, no two alike and all fitting together perfectly to form the greatest structure ever built. America's founding fathers were themselves rejected by each of their own respective orders making America a nation of stones the builders refused.

      All of the symbolism on the back of a one dollar bill has to do with this and when expanded in your mind tells the complete story up until our current point in history. It says the USA is the Nation of the tribe of Judah, the 13th tribe, the tribe of those who have been rejected from their own, or the other 12 tribes. It says we have reclaimed the Ark and rebuilt the temple in America. It shows that the "work in progress" is creating the Son of Man.

      Annuit Coeptis - God oversees our daring undertaking, and by that they mean One God, One tribe... Humanity. Novus Ordo Seclorum - A new secular order, a new priesthood working in seclusion. Finally the Work itself, E. Pluribus Unum - Out of Many... One.

      Various orders may claim symbols as their own I don't know, but looking beneath the symbols tells you who is ultimately responsible. There are 13 instances of 13 on the backside of the dollar bill, it is all the work of the 13th tribe. The reason it's all so secret is because since the dawn of man, the other 12 tribes have sought to eliminate them and their divine Work, which is nothing less than the resurrection of the entire Human race.

      If you were truly able to follow the "treasure map" it would lead you to a person of very average character. You wouldn't even recognize what you'd found, but to be fair you cannot "see" what you're looking for with the two eyes you're using to look for it.

      We're not talking average like the popular notion... the undesirable, unremarkable kind of average nobody pays any attention to, except maybe as nature's best camouflage for Humanity's most valuable possession.

      I mean the absolute mean center of Humanity as determined by geometric measure and mathematical calculation. It may not sound like much, but it would give a single human being the power to move the entire mass of Humanity. Think of him as the most powerful voodoo doll in the universe, being moved by Humanity in order to move Humanity. The only way to do this is thru the Human heart, which only the Son of Man has the Key to open.

      Trying to tell too much with too little, but you get the gist :)

    10. Scott -- I appreciate your indignation on my behalf. I, for one, find Mr. or Ms. Anonymous to be amazing. Imagine having the ability to define a person's entire worth as an educator based solely upon the alleged misuse of a single word in the entire English lexicon! Now I'll have to rethink my entire career. Nah -- I'll just keep teaching my students to think for themselves.

    11. Scott:

      It sounds to me like your response is emotionally driven. I noticed you didn't debate the merits of whether or not your ideas reach the level of "theory". Instead you ask for my name. What does my name have to do with anything, I wonder? Will you employ the tactic of ignoring the argument in favor of attacking the person? Is it the policy of your blog now to request names of everyone who comments, or do you need the names of just those who are disagreeable? I follow your blog all the time, and you never question the integrity of the anonymous contributors who agree with you.

      As far as showing disrespect to the readers of this blog? I don't think so. I have great respect for your followers. I consider it a civic duty to make sure as many people here understand the scientific method and how you're just not living up to it. As people realize, one at a time, that you're selling a bill of goods, these fine people will actually start reading about what really happened in history, and they'll be much better off. You present some interesting ideas, but to date, that's all they are....ideas. You present absolutely no proof. In lieu of proof you try to bolster your credibility to your fans by showing them that "experts" agree with you. This falls flat too, though. The only "experts" you introduce us to are people like Alan Butler. Alan Butler believes that at some point in the future time-traveling Masons will travel back to ancient history and create the moon that we see in our skies today. As ridiculous as that sounds, you know I'm not making that up. He includes the idea in literature that he has written, published, and sold. I know this. Most of your audience does not. When I see you trying to pass a guy like that off as one of your supporting experts I naturally have to question everything you say. Is this harsh? Maybe. But, how much of your own money are are you investing in future moon construction? Probably none. So, if you think future/past moon building stories are as ridiculous as I do, then why sell this guy to us as an "expert"? Butler has shown up on many different shows. He often contradicts what he says from show to show. For instance, over the years I've read or watched as he's told us at least three different places where the Templar fleet (not willing to debate if such a fleet even existed right now) sailed to after they allegedly escaped France. Real experts have ONE story and they stick to it. It doesn't change from show to show.

      PLEASE start using real science, impartiality, and accepted investigation techniques. Your subject matter IS interesting. We'd all still watch and we'd be smarter for it if you did.

      The name behind the comments....
      Zach C.

    12. Zach,

      Now that wasn't too difficult was it? It's a simple principle thing for me and yeah, I was pissed off listening to drivel. Thank you for using what I assume is your real name.

      No proof; or is the better word to use 'evidence?' And do you think it's an effective way to argue by trying to demean all experts who appear on our show by attacking one? It's just plain lame man.

      Alan Butler is as solid a researcher and scholar as there is; his "Moon" and "Intervention" work is cutting edge and brave. He throws out possibilities that he also backs up with solid facts. Are they enough to prove his case? That's for the individual to decide as you obviously have.

      However, just because you don't agree with his take on those subjects, doesn't mean you throw the baby out with the bath water. The mentality you display is exactly opposite of what a good scientist is obligated to do. Consider each idea, and each person, on a case-by-case basis without previous bias. This is often where many academics in the opinion-driven disciplines, like archaeology, linguistics, history, anthropology ,etc., have gone astray. I've found examples time and again in my research; most notably with the KRS.

      If they had been trained in the use of proper scientific method, and used it, we might not be having this exchange. It's tough love pal, but it's the truth.

      And please refrain from trying to tell me about science, impartiality and accepted investigation techniques? I've been in this business for 30 years and comments like these make you look silly. Just stop, OK?

    13. You win, Scott. I'm the silly one. Better start investing in the future of moon construction now so you can get in on the ground floor. Don't know where to send your money? I'm sure your friend Alan Butler can give you some "expert" advice. Just make the check out to cash.

      It is interesting that Butler is your only go-to expert when it comes to Templars, though. Out of all the Templar scholars in the world Alan Butler is the only one with information worth contributing to the show? Seems a bit strange.

      Seriously, good luck on a third season. We're all watching a train wreck in slow motion here. You've placed yourself in a situation where your claims have to get more and more outrageous in an attempt to distract your audience from your complete lack of proof. And, I for one want to ride this out to the end.

      Zach C.

      P.S. How do I know Scott Wolter is your real name? I seriously would have to look out a window if you told me the sky was blue.

    14. Zach,

      I don't need an expert to tell me the standard accepted history of the Templar's as I'm quite familiar with it. Problem is, it isn't the whole story; far from it as you can see.

      You were probably the same "anonymous" who said my research was a train wreck several years ago. Well, the train is still chugging along and it's picking up steam.

      P.S. Do you do stand-up on the side? You're hilarious.

    15. This is for Anonymous "Seeker"

      annuit coeptis novus ordo seculorum means "He granted a new order of ages Children of Dan"



    16. Zach (Bryant?),

      You are now officially cut off because I suspect you are the same "Bryant" I have cut off twice now. While you continue to post as either 'anonymous' or under a fake name, yet you can't alter your commentary habits enough to disguise who you are.

      Because you are continually repeating yourself and combined with the unnecessary nasty and negative tone of your messages together with the fact you've had ample opportunities to express your opinions, it's time to bid you adieu, yet again.

    17. Scott:

      I'm not sure who "Bryant" is, but you obviously have mistaken me for someone else. It doesn't surprise me that you won't print my comments though. We wouldn't want your cash cows to start asking questions you can't answer, can we?

      Keep going, Scott!! I predict in the future the term "Wolter" will be a widely accepted synonym for "buffoon charlatan". But, hey, it's your family name and not mine. So what do I have to worry about?

      Zach C.

    18. Zach,

      You have just confirmed that cutting you off was the right thing to do. Bryant, Zach, anonymous, it doesn't matter; you're all the same. I'm sure there are lot's of blog sites where you and your friends can take turns making up names to call me and spend hours thinking of new ways to justify them. Really sounds productive to me.

      Have fun!

  3. Loved this episode! I totally agree with your theories! I think there is far more to this and that the Catholic Church has tried to keep under wraps. It makes total sense that Jesus and Mary Magdalene carried on his bloodline!

  4. Cindi,

    It does make total sense because it is the truth. People are waking up this truth and the Catholic Church is paying the price for the lies they perpetrated on the faithful. They abused the truth and profited from the lies for far too long. As I said in the show, sooner or later the truth bubbles to the surface.

    It's here and it's not going away.

    1. Scott,

      Too bad about the hoaxed runes. You were diplomatic with those two guys, but I have to say, they looked guilty.

      Regarding the rest of the episode...

      It was a fun episode, and I appreciate this line of study, but from what I have seen on your shows, thus far, I do not see how you can say, to Cindi above, as a scientist, that "it is the truth".

      I have to ask you...

      Are you expressing your belief?

      If you said, "Cindi, I believe it is the truth", that would be accurate.

      But to say, "it is the truth"... that seems just as blind a belief as the belief that Jesus did not have a child.

      How are you different than someone who reads the bible and says, "It's true. Jesus died on the cross for our sins. Jesus never had a child."?

      There are thousands of eyewitness accounts to Bigfoot, but without compelling physical evidence, you remain a skeptic.

      Do you remain skeptical of your own Templar Jesus/baby theory?

      It seems to me that, at this point, it's simply a theory, one grounded in interpretations. Am I wrong?

      It seems to me you are forming beliefs based on your theories... could you be wrong about the Templars and Jesus's baby?

      I think, psychologically, you are having a belief, and that the "truth" is still unknown to you. It's a mystery, and that is why you pursue this line of research.

      When you hold a belief, the truth is a mystery. If you knew the truth, you wouldn't hold a belief.

      Honestly, I don't see how anyone could know the truth, at this point. That would require personal knowledge.

      Even a 2000 year old text that said Jesus and Mary had a baby could be a lie someone invented for some motive... it wouldn't be proof.

      You may very well be on the right tract, have part of it right, or all of it right, but to claim knowledge of the truth takes it a bit far.

      As a scientist, you must understand my point.

      The truth? Here, I'm not sure it is knowable. At most, we might have evidence of Templar beliefs, but not scientific evidence of reality.

      In the meantime, I love your show, I hope you don't take my critique personally. Best wishes...

    2. Aaron,

      No offense taken, but like any other theory or idea that is supported by voluminous facts from multiple disciplines, there comes a time when a conclusion can be reached. With this research I believe the evidence is consistent and conclusive.

      I reached that conclusion years ago and have seen nothing to refute it except Church dogma. Even that is waning these days as it struggles to survive in many places.

      I do understand your point, but I stand behind my conclusion this is indeed the truth. Unfortunately, we are not able to present all the evidence in these two episodes. However, we do get the basic premise out there and plan to present more of the evidence in the future. It all ties in with the controversial, but very genuine artifacts like the Bat Creek Stone, Tucson Lead Artifacts, KRS, Spirit Pond, Newport Tower, etc. This inconvenient truth to many is part of the reason these artifacts have been dismissed which has largely been based on faith, not factual evidence.

      I knew long ago that accepting these artifacts and sites as genuine would trigger a series of dominos to fall that are now going to places many fear to tread. The truth about Jesus/MM and their descendants is one of those places.

      I stand behind my conclusions, and these artifacts and sites, because the facts have proven the case.

      Stay tuned.

  5. Hello Scott,
    Thank you for bringing these perspectives to light. My comments are regarding the photograph of the "Entombment of Christ". I had three observations: one being that Christ was supposed to be dead when being placed in the tomb, and the depiction shows him still bleeding. Do dead individuals bleed? Two, the female I believe to be Mary Magdalene and pregnant, when a pregnant woman is very pregnant her belly button might protrude and if you look carefully at the photo, that is what I believe is happening. The sculptor is actually depicting this by draping her robes to portray this message. And three, is there a carved rose at the point where the belly button would be? I don't have a good view of the photo to see it. Thanks again for your show.

    1. Your observations are right on the mark on all three accounts. The bleeding would suggests the Templars believed Jesus survived the Crucifixion. The belly button certainly was protruding and it is in the shape of a rose. The obvious symbolism is MM was hiding a secret (a child) under the rose.

  6. That a religious power structure would lie, shouldn't surprise anyone. Throughout time they've existed simply to manipulate and control a population for both good and bad by preying upon the innate fear of death and the promise of life ever after. I'm more interested in the hoax uncovered at the beginning of the show. It seemed to be unrelated to the rest of the episode. But as far as exposing hoax rune stones, how did the AVM experience prepare you in this regard? Was that hoax something you uncovered independently Mr. Wolter or was it discovered due to an admission by those responsible for the hoax? If the former, how did you know? If the latter, what did you learn, if anything, to better identify future hoaxes?

    1. The hoax inscription was almost certainly perpetrated by the guy who "discovered" it. There was more to the confrontation we had that wasn't in the show. I figured it out on my own on the spot. After the two left, locals showed us pictures of the hoaxer’s carving skills in rock that included a self-portrait with his initials. This was not long after I asked him, on camera, if he had ever carved anything in stone in his life and denied it.

      The story I relayed above is exactly what happened. Before I got there, I was hoping like crazy this inscription was genuine for it would have supported my Hooked X thesis in a big way. Unfortunately, it wasn't and it didn't take for me long to figure it out. I was pissed off royally at the time, but it is it isn't in this case.

      What I learned is what I already knew; that if you scientifically examine things carefully, the fakes reveal themselves quickly and the real stuff just keeps hanging around. It's been over 116 years now and the Kensington Rune Stone just won't go way.

    2. Well, the Kensington Rune Stone was also dismissed as a hoax rather quickly. I believe the main reason was due to the word "opþagelsefärd", which although appeared in Scandinavian publications in the U.S. during the late 1800's when the stone was discovered, it was not in use during the 14th century when it was alleged to have been engraved.

    3. You are correct it was dismissed quickly. However, the word is not "opþagelsefärd"; the word is "optagelsefärd" which is an Old Swedish word meaning "acquisition business, or taking up land." This discovery, made by myself, Richard Nielsen, and Professor Henrik Williams, completely changed the context of the message.

      This word was just one of the many misunderstood and perfectly consistent linguistic features of the inscription we discovered in the medieval legal diploma's that had never been looked at, and found on many of the hundreds of medieval runic grave slabs found on Gotland.

      There no longer are any linguistic, dialect, language or runic problems within the KRS inscription. Everything has been found to be Old Swedish and consistent with the 14th century. This includes the Hooked X!

      The Kensington Rune Stone is 100% genuine!

    4. There is no doubt you completely changed the message with your understanding of the word, likening it to a typo, correct? I mean, interpreting an alternate spelling of one word when other words with the same sound were not spelled that way on the stone, is rather a stretch, no? I mean, that's the controversy that remains.

      But that aside, I was watching the Holy Grail in America show the other night. In that show you compared the KRS with other inscribed stones such as old grave markers and in your subjective opinion claimed the engraving had to date back to the 1600's at the very least. You then maintained that there was no record of anyone else in the area where the KRS was found during the 1600's but Native Americans. So you then went back to the date on the KRS itself, 1362 to date it. So basically, you authenticated the date of the KRS with the date inscribed on it. And though no record of Scandinavian people were in that area, just like they weren't there in the 1600's apparently, you also used the KRS to substantiate that as well. Is this really your reasoning, or was it simply bad editing by the show's producers? That's just how I interpreted the Holy Grail in America show as presented.

    5. Professor Henrik Williams does not support that the KRS is genuine:

    6. I was not the one who changed the message, this was done by the Scandinavian scholars. There is no controversy on this point.

      The weathering of the KRS inscription proved it was not carved in the late 19th century as everybody claimed. At this point, logic takes over. There can only be two plausible possibilities, it's either a late 19th century hoax or it's genuine. Since it's not a hoax, and the weathering of the inscription is OLDER than 200 years, from 1898, then the only piece of data we have to put it anywhere in time is the date (twice) carved on the stone; 1362.

      Once you say that, then everything within the inscription must be consistent with the 14th century. We can now say that everything has been found and is consistent. Based on all of this, and the lack of any evidence to the contrary (conjecture and here say don't count as evidence), the KRS must be accepted as a genuine artifact.

      This triggers a whole bunch of self-evident facts based on logic that should have spurred enthusiastic interest on the part of certain academic disciplines, yet still they sit with their heads in the sand.

      Why is this? Part of the reason is they have demonstrated time and again they don't understand the science or the logic.

    7. I didn't say Professor Henrik Williams said the KRS was genuine; although he says publically it is a hoax, he knows it isn't. I know the professor personally very well and his situation in Sweden is quite complicated. He made his situation even worse with statements he's made during lectures in the U.S.

      The Larsson Papers he refers to are Masonic documents and despite his or Mike Michlovic's uninformed and bias opinion, (I also know Mike quite well) these secret alphabets absolutely could, and in fact, did survive 500 years within these societies and orders.

      Williams is a bright guy, but knows nothing about Freemasonry, Templarism, or secret societies. Therefore, both he and Michlovic's opinions on the Larsson Papers are meaningless.

      Nice try.

    8. "The weathering of the KRS inscription proved it was not carved in the late 19th century as everybody claimed. At this point, logic takes over. There can only be two plausible possibilities, it's either a late 19th century hoax or it's genuine. Since it's not a hoax, and the weathering of the inscription is OLDER than 200 years, from 1898, then the only piece of data we have to put it anywhere in time is the date (twice) carved on the stone; 1362. "

      Logically speaking, that would be creating a false dilemma, begging the question and circular reasoning.

      I did not know your position on the Larsson papers. Thank you for taking the time to clarify. But Neilson doesn't go along with the Masonic angle either, though he still believes the KRS to be genuine. Right?

    9. The logic is simple, straightforward and creates no false dilemma. What part did you not understand?

      Initially, Nielsen was fully on board with the Masonic/Templar connections, but changed his position once he became upset at not getting the attention and credit he felt he deserved. In 2008, Dick rendered himself irrelevant in the KRS discussion after tricking the Runestone Museum into allowing him to facilitate low-res 3D imaging work to be done on the artifact, and then not releasing the data to anyone including the museum. He then proceeded to publish a series of bogus papers on his own website in an effort to undermine our 5 years of joint research.

      It is these bogus papers, much of it with his inappropriate and inaccurate take on geological aspects, that KRS opponents and Wiki cite as evidence against my work. Dick hasn't been heard from in a couple of years now and it's a shame because we did some really great work together, along with Henrik Williams, in the early days. Unfortunately, they both fell victim to their own egos.

      At this point, I don't know or care what Dick thinks anymore.

    10. "The logic is simple, straightforward and creates no false dilemma. What part did you not understand?"

      Simple yes, as I understood it perfectly as stated and categorized it most appropriately. Creating a false dilemma is when you offer only two distinct possibilities as options when there are certainly others. Your example of this is rather obvious. Begging the question is when you restate your conclusion as if a premise, like when you authenticate the Kensington Rune Stone date by accepting the date inscribed on it as authentic. This is actually a two-for as it involves circular reasoning as well.

      Sorry to hear about the falling out with Mr. Nielsen and disagreement with Professor Williams. Is there anyone else in academia that supports your work whose publications I could review?

    11. The 'hoax or genuine' options aren't a "false dilemma", they're reality. There are no other plausible scenarios and you know it, so just accept it OK?

      Nielsen's early work is still excellent and the article about "har" written by Nielsen and Williams, in 2003, is very important as it eliminated the sole linguistic problem within the inscription. This happened when I documented the two dots (umluts) above the "a" rune in the word "har" on line 10.

      Robert A. Hall Jr., Professor Emeritus of Linguistics at Cornell University, wrote two books (1982 and 1994) on the language of the KRS and concluded it was "Authentic and Important."

      Of course, besides the dishonest and deliberate attempts by opponents to ignore Hall's work, they also fail to acknowledge the excellent geological, linguistic, and historical research conducted by Professor Newton H. Winchell, in 1909-1910. He also concluded it was genuine and my geological work independently replicated and validated his work.

    12. "The 'hoax or genuine' options aren't a "false dilemma", they're reality. There are no other plausible scenarios and you know it, so just accept it OK?"

      Yet there are other plausible scenarios. You simply name two that are narrowly construed, rule out one right away as if no other possibilities exist and then act as if you've proven your remaining choice. That is the very nature of the false dilemma. It just isn't that simple. Another plausible scenario would be that your research into the dating is biased and/or inaccurate. Though you may not like to consider that possibility, logic does not rule it out. I mean, nobody's perfect.

      Hall and Winchell came before you. My question was in regard to support for your specific work, not the work of others you support.

    13. What are the other plausible scenario's you are referring to? What evidence do you have that my research was bias or inaccurate?

      Six geologist's, including three four professors, reviewed my geological work on the KRS; three in written exchanges. The only geologist who had questions about my findings was in an email from Runo Lofvendahl in Sweden. I answered Runo's questions and on my subsequent visit to Sweden we spent sever hours alone studying the KRS. In the end, he agreed with all of my findings and offered some of his own. He would not put our findings of fact or his opinions in writing for fear of retribution from his academic colleagues in Sweden.

      Professor Henrik Williams was punished with additional administrative duties for three years by the President of Uppsala University for simply saying the KRS needed to be restudied after we discovered the umluts in "har."

      Yes, that is how bad it is in Sweden when it comes to the KRS. They are as dishonest a bunch as I've ever seen. I know these are pretty harsh words, but sadly, it is true and I can prove it. I hold out no hope whatsoever academia in Scandinavia will be forthright in any capacity when it comes to the KRS.

    14. Was hoping to see my response to your challenge above. Did you not get it?

    15. I got your response and decided I've heard enough insults and lack of respect for my work. I'm tired of this type of worthless exchange where people like you refuse to acknowledge a single point of fact and frame every argument to suit your own ends. If you could carry on a normal, intelligent discussion and display a hint of open-mindedness instead of displaying a persistent "debunker" mentality things would be different.

      Surely you must have better things to do with your time?

  7. I just watched your lastest episode. I find this theory fastinating. I had never heard of the "M" symbol before. After seeing this my thoughts immediately turned to DaVinci"s Vitruvian Man. I googled the picture and sure enough the shaped formed by the man's legs is an "M" I can"t wait to see next weeks episode. Thank you Scott for sharing this with us all!

    1. Michelle,

      That's a great call! I hadn't noticed that one before. Check out Michelangelo's Sistine Chapel painting of Adam and God. Double M's. Also take a look at the Mona Lisa; very subtle, but there. The portrait of the Columbus is in your face.

      Now that you're aware of it, you'll see it everywhere. Have fun!

    2. Scott and Michelle,

      Michelangelo is also showing off his knowledge of anatomy. God is pointing from the right hemisphere of the brain. The stylized Egyptian Eye is also a representation of the human brain. I believe someone has the copyright to that idea. Idea came to me after handling a brain in class. Leonardo gives a female anatomy lesson in the Mona Lisa as well. Part of which, would be inappropriate for network television.

      The "Eye" on the back of our dollar seems to be a stylized geometrical representation of our solar system. See: "A Little Book of Coincidence" by, John Martineau (pages 48-49) You'll see what I see.

      Best regards,


  8. Hi Scott,
    After watching this last episode, MM being pregnant with the child of Jesus makes since. What if the birth of his child was actually the resurrection of his bloodline three days after his death?

    1. Amanda,

      Any new birth is a resurrection and continuation of a bloodline. In the case of the three days of Jesus' resurrection, it's simply an allegory not for the rebirth of the "son" of God, it was the rebirth of the "sun" God. At the winter solstice, the sun "stands still" for three days and then is "reborn" and the days get longer on the march toward spring and new life.

  9. Every time 18 ships of Templars sneaking off to North America, I want to ask them how such a feat could be done without anyone knowing.

    The amount of resources required for 18 ships would be staggering. They would need fresh water, salt, fruit, grain, meat, live animals, sailors, maps, etc. The cargo holds on early transatlantic ships were immense, occupying most of the volume of the vessels.

    To procure this on a moments notice would have required entire villages and so much gold and power. Spanish subjugates were forced to help Columbus, and even he had to make pitstops at more subjugated colonies. The procurement of the funding is an entire historical event in and of itself.

    Even if the Templars had the gold, finding the resources surely would take a lot of time and influence. How could this be accomplished so surreptitiously that no evidence has ever been found?

    I find it extremely hard to believe that this could be accomplished without the knowledge of the Church or monarchies. Surely someone would expose the scheme, knowingly or not. Or, at the very least recorded the event.

    Proponents of the argument act like the templars are slipping off in a canoe in the dead of night! Even the Vikings only accomplished the feat over a few centuries and many settlements.

    Say the Templars did somehow pull it off, what is the probability of evidence of repairs, restocking, naval conflict, etc, disappearing forever?

    Is there an argument for this aspect that I don’t know about?

    1. I doubt they headed from La Rochelle straight to the Americas. More than likely they headed north towards Templar friendly countries and from there made the trip west.

      The Templar's were masters at keeping secrets. I for one have no problem believing that they could have made such trips to America in secret. And once there, if they were trying to hide something of great importance, they would surely do everything within their power to leave no trace of their presence.

    2. TD,

      I completely agree the ships that left la Rochelle did not go directly to North America. They had already been there multiple times, but in 1307 likely split up and went to friendly ports in Scotland, Denmark and Portugal.

      Secrets? No problem at all for them.

    3. Hello Scott,

      Have you ever considered the "Anastazi" sites? From what I understand, Anastazi means "Children of Light" and they were "foreign invaders". The "everything in their power to leave no trace of their presence" mentioned by TD Bauer really strikes a chord.

      Best regards,


  10. Beaker,

    First, the journey to North America is not nearly as difficult as you think; especially if you knew where you were going and had allied support with the Native's which they certainly did.

    The evidence is preserved in both Mide'win and Masonic rituals and you can bet many of the documents are tucked away in the Vatican and other archives. I'm aware of some of these documents that will be coming out shortly.

    You will become a believer in this factually true story.

    1. The question isn't about what I believe to be difficult. It is about the historical record showing the difficulties that their contemporaries faced and the templar hypothesis completely ignoring those challenges. Is it so the theory appears more plausible? Why can it not be addressed directly and logically?

      If you can't tell us HOW they got there, how can you tell people they WERE there? We don't have any evidence. Nothing presented so far provides a direct link to the Templars. One must take several leaps of faith to even begin to believe in the idea.

      What you wrote isn't a rebuttal and offers no insight. This is one reason as to why I have such a hard time with these theories. There is nothing tangible in the foundation, only speculation and references to movies.

      No reference to WHO might be releasing the mysterious documents, WHAT they are, or WHEN.

      Why all the subterfuge? Is this to drive sales or viewers? Can we at least have 1 fact?

    2. Beaker,

      You are forgetting about the documents we already have that prove the medieval Templar's obviously got here such as the Kensington Rune Stone, the Spirit Pond Rune Stones, the Narragansett Rune Stone and the Newport Tower to name a few. And please don't insult me by trying to argue they haven't been proven. The factual evidence is consistent and clear from multiple disciplines. They simply haven't been accepted by certain scholars who were/are too stubborn, too arrogant, or too lazy to understand the facts in front of them. I've interacted with these people in great depth and they are an embarrassment to academia.

      The other document I refer to I've already discussed briefly in my latest book. They are currently being vetted and when that process has been completed we'll share it in full.

      You now have plenty of facts to digest; get after it.

    3. It's been rumored that the Knights Templar had spies in the Vatican and the Catholic Church itself. Logically, this makes perfect sense given the known power and reach of the Templars. When logics is applied to the known facts about the Knights Templar, coupled with credible rumors/theories that the Templars had spies in the Catholic Church, then one can surmise that the Templars were likely not taken completely unawares. It would not be unreasonable to speculate that the Templars had years of warning that the Vatican considered them a threat. It would have been fairly easy to keep ships supplied and have an escape plan should any threat become credible/emenent.
      As for records of the time, records are easily suppressed and even more easily destroyed. What's truly surprising is that so much exists to prove that such an organization existed 700 years after it was abolished! Now that speaks volumes about their power and influences!

    4. Jenn,

      There is no doubt the Templars had spies within the Church since the very founding of the Cistercian and Templar orders was a coup d'etat by the Venus Families from the very beginning. The leadership, starting with the most visible figure, Bernard de Clairvaux, initiated the Crusades under the guise of fighting for Christendom, but the outward motivation was a ruse from the start. Most of the foot-soldier Templar knights were fighting for God and Chruch, but the leadership was secretly inspired by the Goddess.

      The Venus Families ultimate mission was to restore their ancient faith of Monotheistic Dualism that was hijacked by the patriarchal Church. The Venus Families were particularly offended the Church used their ancestral king, Jesus, as a fictional, divine character; and had their queen, Mary Magdalene, reduced to a whore to serve the Church's selfish and destructive motives.

      When history is looked at through this lens, suddenly events connected to the Cistercians and Knights Templar make a lot more sense.

  11. I would like to add some information and thoughts later but I did know of this photo -- just food for thought. As Scott says, some information will be coming out shortly. Is this a precursor to the release of documents. Look at the "pope's hand"......

    1. The pope! He's in on it! I wonder if he will deign to help Wolter in his 'important' work.

      After all, the Catholic Church has been trying to find just the route to the softening of their stance on women in the Church.

      'MM', the OG gang sign of the kewl kids. Good grief I can't believe the levels American television has sunk to.

    2. Well, didn't that contribute to the discussion...

  12. Dave,

    I used a similar picture of Pope Francis in my Akhenaten book. Is it a coincidence that he uses the "M" sign and is preaching tolerance and reform of the Roman Church? I think not.

    1. The Roman Church does seem to 'hijack' a lot of emblems and symbols... I wonder if that particular gesture has been hijacked in an attempt to discredit the original secret intent in affect saying 'hey, we make that gesture too, it's not a Templar symbol', or if they have adapted it in an effort to start an internal reformation, perhaps eventually leading to a Vatican III change where some hidden truths are made public.

      I have a bitter-sweet relationship with the Catholic faith. My family history has had some strong ties... My many 'greats' grandfather was Lord Baltimore, George Calvert (one time ambassador to France, one time Secretary of State for England, member of the Privy Counsel, friend of King James I, etc...). The Baltimore Barons were governors/proprietors of the Maryland Colony, which they intended to be a haven for Catholics in early colonial times. The history with the Church is deep on that side of my family tree. Proud of my family's historical mentions, but have to admit disappointed at how the Roman Church abused their power for their own gain. After all, is the story of Jesus any less intriguing and the message of his teachings any less important towards humanity by saying he was a man who was married and had offspring? Personally I don't think so. The Christian movement still would have been massive and grew as it did. Perhaps if the Catholic Church had not suppressed as many things as they had and made up some of the cannon rules as they had they wouldn't be having the problems they are having today. Hind-sight...a harsh mistress.

      Just finished reading Alice Beck Kehoe's book about her holistic view of the KSR. Interesting read and thought provoking.

    2. Are you familiar with the meaning of a balled fist, with thumb protruding between the index finger and middle finger? One of the cherubs in the Sistine Chapel is flashing it right at the Pope. I've recently learned, it's their version of the "middle finger" we use today. I'd noticed the "M" symbol being flashed but, had no idea what it meant until watching Scott's show. Thank you for that Scott. I'd been thinking it was reference to the "Fleur des les". There's several other hand gestures I've seen repeatedly. I've yet to discover all of the meanings. I've a few ideas though.

      Best regards,


    3. TD Bauer,

      Good post; I can appreciate the conundrum many Catholics feels toward their Church. It is especially prevalent in Minnesota right now where the archdiocese recently filed for Chapter 11 protection to skirt paying huge legal fees and judgments in lawsuits filed by victims of sexual abuse by Catholic priests. Parishes are consolidating and people are leaving the Church in droves here, disgusted with whole institution.

      I have many Catholic friends who are torn emotionally over the turmoil and it's hard to see them struggle. I can appreciate your bitter-sweet feelings.

      I'm glad you brought up Alice's book that skeptics never talk about because she is a respected scholar who has endorsed both my own and Richard Nielsen's work on the KRS. I am confident that when open-minded and objective academics in the future examine all the evidence they'll reach the same conclusion as Alice.

    4. Her book is only about a hundred pages long and easily can be read within an evening. I really enjoyed the book and her research approach towards the KRS. It was first published back in 2004, over ten years ago, and you are right, critics never seem to mention her work or try to discredit it. She holds a PhD in Anthropology. There certainly is a double standard when it comes to academics who hold varying degrees within certain fields in regards to their research/findings on the KRS.

  13. John the Baptist was never depicted in the Last Supper as was stated. The disciple John is seated next to Jesus. John the Baptist was not one of the 12 disciples.

  14. Clare,

    I just watched the episode again and you are correct. That was a mistake and I will take responsibility since I read the voiceover. I didn't have the graphic to see at the time, but that's not an excuse. That is supposedly John the Evangelist in Da Vinci's painting, but it's obviously Mary Magdalene.

    1. Simple question, yes or no answer. Scott, were you interested in any of this stuff(specifically the renaissance art 'proof'..) before the Da Vinci Code film/book was popularized? Honest answer plz.

    2. Yes, but not long before Da Vinci Code came out. In 2002, Nielsen and my study of the KRS language and runes led us to Gotland and the fact the only clergy there in the 14th century who could have carved an inscription of this complexity and length were the Cistercians. Upon reading about them, the Templar's quickly entered the picture and we started thinking they were the ones involved in it's creation.

      Between 2003-2005, I made the first of 5 trips to Sweden investigating the runes, dialect, grammar, language and dating, and as we learned more about the Cistercians, Templars, Teutonic Knights, etc., the controversial aspects involving Jesus and MM began to enter. Both Dick and I discussed the irony of the parallels that were unfolding and figured we'd get questions like this eventually. However, Brown's novel had nothing to do with the research which unfolded as it did.

      The bloodline of Jesus & Mary part really began to take focus in 2007 with the discovery of the Talpiot Tomb. To be fair, there are important discoveries I haven't shared yet that are borderline incredible in their implications. They will be revealed at the proper time after everything has been vetted.

      That's the way it happened.

  15. Hello Scott,

    I believe the Copper Scroll could be key to many ideas presented on AU, and could possibly blow the lid off academia. It's my understanding, the copper the scroll is comprised of is 99.9% pure. This high level of purity has been attributed to "some long lost purification method". What if that copper came from the Lake Superior region??? I'd always read, "copper of that purity didn't occur naturally". If I'm not mistaken, I believe that is the level of purity from the sample you tested. Now, I doubt anyone is going to get to take a sample of the scroll for copper origin but, couldn't someone test the sample that was already taken to get the level of purity in the first place??? If the Copper Scroll of is made of North American Copper...That'd be a BIG DEAL.

    Some of the symbols on the Copper Scrolls have appeared on your show. The "V" with the extended arm on what I believe is called Hobson Island, is one which really stands out. It is one of many which could be interpreted as part of a star. An upside down, five pointed star to be exact. I've seen a similar old code done with circles. If I can find the picture, I'll email it to you. It may help to illustrate much better than my words.

    Personally, I believe the Templars had been here long before, they even became an official order. I'm fairly certain, they had secret colonies, and trade. Wouldn't have been hard to escape, with a pre-existing shipping network.

    The secret of Steel seems to be inner woven with the "Hooked X" and the symbol itself could be interpreted as "the sword in the stone" in two senses. One astronomical, and the other with metallurgy. Astronomically, the symbol can be seen as the crossing of the Solstice lines, with the "hook" denoting the sunrise of the Summer Solstice. I'm not sure if your familiar with the symbolism of the "sword laying diagonal across an open book". This symbol is all over the Washington Monument. The same underlying meaning can be inferred. The rising Sun of the Summer Solstice. The blade is the shadow cast by the pillar, and the Sun is part of the hilt. If anyone reading this needs a visual See: "Stellar Theology & Masonic Astronomy" by Robert Hewitt Brown (page, 82)

    Some symbols are actually several separate symbols combined to form a picture, and there's always multiple levels of meaning. Keeping this in mind, look at the "Rosslyn Hooked X" not only as an overlapped "AVM" but, also look at the number of metal making tools overlapped as well. From the crucible to the finished product. There's much more regarding the metallurgical aspect. I'll leave it here for now, with something I heard a long time ago. "Templars and the Gods...They both had Steel".

    Best regards,


    1. Hello Anthony, my eyes caught "steel" and "hooked X" being used in the same sentence, and now some of your comments have left me intrigued. Would you mind going into more detail about metal-making tools overlapping, and about "from the crucible to the finished product?" You seem to be making fairly direct connections between medieval metallurgy and the hooked X symbol, and I'm hoping you don't mind elaborating. I'm genuinely interested in understanding the connections you are proposing.

      "The secret of Steel seems to be inner woven with the "Hooked X."

      The reason I'm intrigued is because of a metal object I found a few years ago after a wind-storm, only a few paces from where the Kensington Runestone was found--which, as you know, has plenty of hooked X's on it! Click on my name and you will see a page referring to the metal object I found, and a short history of its finding.

      I read in a book by Wm Mann ("Templar Meridians") where he referred to IRON as "Templar treasure." I don't agree with much of what he has to say (bloodline stuff), but he has some very interesting things to say about iron and iron making in medieval North America.

      What I'm wondering is this: Did I accidentally stumble across "Templar treasure" on Runestone Hill? I think I may have found a medieval bloom or ingot of sorts, but with several built-in "carrying" purposes in mind, such as a war club. (I only recently sent an email to a Professor at the U of MN with the hope of having it analyzed.)

      "Coincidentally," it had been buried (overgrown by soil) at about the same depth on Runestone Hill (18"), as was a medieval Scandinavian battle axe found on the bank of an actual lake with two skerries about a day's journey north of Runestone Hill. The axe was discovered back in 1894, just before the KRS itself was found. (I believe the message on the KRS is simple and factual.)

      I invite anyone reading this to help identify what the object is that I found. Perhaps it is merely from Olof Ohman's farming days, but I would like to know for sure.

    2. Hello Gunn,

      First. I've got to ask....Any relation to the Templar "Gunn" buried in the U.S.? If so, I'd pay attention to Oak Island. I believe it's Templar tombs.

      Interestingly, I've read the same book, and is part of my inspiration. Most of my puzzle pieces came together while reading one of Alan Butler's books. It was mentioned that Rosslyn and some other places, matched up with places from King Arthur stories. This began a flood of various thoughts, which had all come together after reading a Rosicrucian version of "The Temptation of Jesus" as an initiation process. This initiation process was for the "Transmutation of Conscience". It was explained that during this process the soul goes through many color changes, and each change is a result from an increase of heat, or "vibrations"(hammering came to mind here). Started with the color black, and ended with the "pure white light of the Christ Spirit". The initiate is then dunked into water(baptism) to solidify the "Transmutation of Conscience" and make the initiate "incorruptible" and "The Philosopher's Stone". This is when Master Massamune crafting a steel sword came to mind. The ore went through the exact same color changes, and when the sword was white hot, and looked like a light sabre from Star Wars, he dunked it in the water, and solidified the Transmutation of Metal. He created an "incorruptible" Stainless Steel Sword. This is when King Arthur came to mind. The knight sees a white light, then returns Excalibur to the Lady of the Lake. This makes me believe the "Philosopher's Stone" is actually Stainless Steel. There are many other mental connections but, I don't want to write a book here. From my college fraternity experience, or as I call it, a Christianized version of Freemasonry, I learned my lesson on symbols. Many symbols cane be combined, overlapped, and personified to convey deeper meanings. I've also come to discover that most all have an astronomical meaning.(There's another level to Egyptian Hieroglyphs that is astronomical too) Now, looking a the Rosslyn Hooked X...First, I see the astronomical. Appears to be referring to Sunrise of the Summer Solstice at a particular latitude. That's one level. From some stuff I took an oath not to talk about, I'm pretty sure it also means "Child of Light". Mr. Wolter's interpretation also fits. Then I looked at it with sword symbolism in relation to the Solstice. This is when I could see a crucible, tongs, hammer, furnace, billet, and of course the sword. This reminded me of several depictions of Hephaestus pulling a sword from a stone, just like King Arthur, and how steel was a jealously guarded secret. This brought me back to "Templar Meridians" and "Templar Gold". I began to wonder IF, the Templars were forging steel in America? Could those places be found? Why have I never seen anything regarding Templar steel making in Europe? They had to of left byproducts. If any European sites exist, steering me in their direction would be appreciated. I recently watched a program where steel armor was x-rayed. They were using techniques for stopping bullets, which have only begun to be used today.

      Interesting tidbits:

      The oldest known steel comes from the Ancient Hittite Kingdom in Turkey.

      A tool containing steel was found within the masonry of the Great Pyramid of Giza. It was attributed to later invaders, and cast aside. To my knowledge, no one has ever taken a second look.

      Best Regards from the chaos of my mind,


    3. Gunn,

      I forgot to mention...Who was Hephaestus "The Articifer of the Gods" married to?...Venus

      Food for thought,


  16. David from KnoxvilleJanuary 25, 2015 at 11:53 PM

    Hey Scott!

    I'm not sure if my last post went through but I was just wondering now that you've exposed the "M" symbol if you've noticed that the hooked x at rosslyn chapel has an "M" as the bottom part of the x??? From what I've read most believe this to be a diamond in the middle of the x that represents a mason mark. Have you noticed this M at the bottom and what do you make of it??? Looking forward to the next episode!

    1. David,

      You are quite correct there is an AVM within the Rosslyn Hooked X. However, symbols usually have multiple meanings and that lozenge could also represent an important latitude. I discuss the ancient method of determining latitude using a stick and based on the shape of the lozenge in the Rosslyn Hooked X, it would be a location somewhere around the Arctic Circle.

      Of course, it may simply be a reference only to the Goddess/Mary Magdalene.

  17. I loved that A&E felt it necessary to put a disclaimer on the views and beliefs depicted in this episode were not shared by the network...multiple times! Way to stand behind you! Funny how I have never seen that disclaimer before on your show, nor on another H2 show that I watch that makes what many would claim to be far reaching conclusions about world history.
    I loved this episode! Next week will be bitter sweet!

    1. Jenn,

      That was interesting, but not surprising as I've had a few people on Twitter and email express disappointment about the religious implications of the episode. I'm sure the network wanted to play it carefully and chose to air the disclaimer to let people know they meant no offense. I feel the same way.

      However, by airing the episode at all shows they support both me and this research which I greatly appreciate.

  18. Hi Scott
    just watched the latest show , loved it. My question is ,do you have any ideas for the existing family name yet ? :)

    1. Sami,

      I'm a little confused; are you talking family names for descendants of Jesus and Mary living today? If so, based on my research there are many. In fact, it's likely there are tens of thousands of people living today whose family tree likely intersects with the first century royal family.

  19. Scott,

    If it is true that the Templars were, or still are, protecting the secret 'knowledge' or scrolls/artifacts telling the story of Jesus and Mary's bloodline, then I have a few questions:

    1. Where and when did the Templars first obtain knowledge of the bloodline? Was it from scrolls found in the early 12th century?

    2. If the Templars learned about the bloodline in the early 12th century, did they concern themselves with finding that bloodline? Did they believe to have found it?

    3. If the Templars believed to have found the bloodline, what evidence exists to prove they were right? Could they have been wrong, and/or have been duped by those seeking power?

    I raise these questions for a few reasons...

    There are always false claims to nobility, family royalty, and even divinity...

    I recall stories as a child that my grandfather's family in Scotland was descended from the royal Montagues in France... however, my own modern day genealogical research uncovered that this was not the case, that, rather, an uncle of his married a woman with the Montague surname. She, indeed, might have been related to the famous Montagues, but without dna testing, I would never know, and certainly neither my grandfather, or myself, are part of that lineage.

    Another example... For centuries the Tibetans have had a system for identifying their reincarnated lamas and realized/enlightened teachers... now, the Chinese are involved, claiming they have identified the reincarnations... This is a slightly different lineage than a bloodline, but it helps create perspective... disputes often arise, and there may be no tangible way to discern the truth.

    Even from the days of Jesus, there could have been those that claimed to be of the bloodline, but were wrong or lying...

    Could the bloodline have been identified, correctly, in the 12th century, and is there any hope of discerning it today, as watered down as it must be?

    As anyone who has traced their family tree quickly discovers... trace your great-great-great grandparents offspring and you soon find you have hundreds of distant cousins... and while we will all share comparatively large segments of DNA, we also share large segments with those we cannot place in our family lineage.

    Unless the bloodline of Jesus and Mary was artificially limited, which still would have thinned the bloodline, I think by this point there could be many thousands of off-spring living today, scattered.

    So, is it the bloodline that the Templars protected, or simply the view that the Church hierarchy had no legitimate claim to the Church, because the true lineage of the son of God (to one who held that belief), was the off-spring of that son of God, the baby of Mary and Jesus?

    I love the mystery of the symbols and the Templars, and really enjoy following the series, but I am trying to figure out... in your view, were the Templars were simply protecting an alternative history to that of the church, that being the offspring of Jesus and Mary, an idea, a competing belief to the Church... or, do you believe they actually claimed, and claimed accurately, who that offspring was?

    I realize there are those, today, and in the past, who claimed to be descended from Jesus, even a popular book author has claimed this, but I honestly can't see how we would ever figure it out. Is that part of your search?

    1. Aaron,

      I like to use "Venus Families" instead of Templars because the knights only existed from circa 1100 A.D. onward. The Venus Families go back to time of Akhenaten in Egypt and beyond. The subject of "secrets" go back to the beginning of the families who were essentially the elite within their various societies who had the opportunity and birthright to learn the secrets also called the "Ancient Mysteries."

      It wasn't until Jesus and Mary Magdalene's time that things went haywire with the Roman's siege of Jerusalem. The real story is unfolding now and because of how the early Church fathers distorted history to serve the needs of the institution, it's a mess trying to sort it all out. The Bible is mostly allegory making it an unreliable source for straightforward factual information.

      This is a tough nut to crack, but I truly believe we are on the right track.

    2. Scott,

      I see where you are going with this theory Jesus marriage to Mary Magdalene. It is an interesting theory. There are many competing theories about Mary Magdalene. We know the Church’s denigration of her character as a prostitute is a false narrative that Church had to correct.

      There is a theory that she was his aunt through her being the wife of Joseph of Arimathea. Many believe because of the fact that Joseph and Nicodemus prepared the body of Christ for burial that they had to be is the oldest male relatives by Jewish law. Joseph is thought by many to be the brother of Mary Jesus’ mother and Nicodemus her father both were members of the Sanhedrin by their royal heritage. This theory ties into royal birthright of Mary as a descendant of the house of David. Joseph of Arimathea is also thought to be a rich trader in metals with ties to Great Britain through the tin trade and legends of Jesus being in southern England during part the missing years between ages 12 and 30.

      Who knows which of the many theories and legends are factual? I surely don’t know.

      I find your show interesting. My father and great grandfather were both known to be Masons and my family tree has many Masons in it. So your Mason theories were interesting to me.

      In researching may family I have found that we came over from England with the original Pilgrims and signers of the Freeman Oath to the Charter of the Plymouth Colony. We then trace back to a relative of Matilda the wife of William the Conquerer and the invasion of 1066. In other words we were Salian Franks and Merovingians. Strange how things tie together. I will reserve my opinion on the whole Venus Families thing until I learn more about that theory also. I just don’t know how it could ever be proven right or wrong.

  20. ~Scott, the way in which you confronted the hoax of the Hooked X stone in southwestern Pennsylvania showed a brilliance of character few could display.

    ~Your segment on your visit to Camanderie D'Arville in Troys, France, brings to life a reality that was truly unkown to me, and as I followed the travels and narrative, I found myself being a truth-seeker who wants to comprehend the importance of what you present.~

    1. Kevin,

      What you saw is what happened. I was really pissed when I realized what was going on, but had to keep calm if I was going to figure out who did it.

      This show started off as one episode, but we found so much incredible stuff it turned into two parts. I think you'll really enjoy part 2.

    2. ~~Your photo of the St. Clairs and your travel to Troy with Steve introduce an element of surprise that adds to the narrative of Knights Templar in France, and coincides with the family names that symbologist Langdon and cryptologist Neveu discover at Rosslyn Chapel in 'The Da Vinci Code.' Were they interested in the geneology of the Merovingians before they met you? Does Part 2 reveal anything more about them? Are they Minnesotans?~~

  21. Watched the latest episode last night of the DVR. Very interesting information.

    I was raised Roman Catholic, was an alter boy for a few years, but in my middle teen years I started slipping away from being a participating Catholic that went to Mass once a week. I am a bad Catholic these days...only going to Mass a few times a year, and certainly not a hardline follower despite having joined the Knights several years ago and currently a 3rd Degree.

    I had to admit, from my perspective, after having read a variety of the gospels/books left of out the bible, such as the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Mary Magdala, and even the Gospel of James, the early Church really messed up big time by deciding to omit such written works. Early Christians were hungry for knowledge of Jesus, and there was much interest in his family history and his childhood, as written about in the gospels mentioned above. But when the bible was first compiled and certain gospels were left out the Church was becoming very powerful, and their own message/teachings are what ultimately prevailed and what are know today by most Catholics.

    The Roman Catholic Church could really find itself turned upside down if some of the research and theories that are being discussed today in regards to Jesus and his probably bloodline came to light. And it would be their own darn fault for the fallout. I think the Roman Church is trying to reform, but there are still many old school cardinals that wield some serious power. I would love to be free to research anything I wanted to within the Vatican Library... imagine what would be found!? I am willing to bet many truths long suppressed can be found there.

    Really looking forward to the next episode and seeing where things go from there.

  22. TD,

    You summarized things very nicely. The whole ruse of the Church is starting to crumble and they have to change their message or risk total collapse. Pope Francis is making huge strides in the right direction; let's hope the more toward better balance continues. If not, the future looks bleak.

  23. Scott,

    I think you or Alan Butler should take a long look at the prophecy in Revelations 12:5. Many believe this prophecy is actually a reference to a specific celestial alignment. A quick google search will give you ample details. I am telling you this, because that painting of Mary (above) is a precise depiction of that astrological alignment. the Twelve angels crowning the Virgin are a representation of the 12 stars referred to in Rev. The Virgin is clothed in the Sun as it radiates behind her in this picture. The moon is at her feet.

    I am a practicing Catholic. This painting can be found all over Catholicism. Our Lady of Guadeloupe is another depiction. In some, she is with child and also there is a dragon below. These are depictions of the Rev. 12 prophecy fulfilled. The coming of the messiah, or second coming of Christ.

    All of these paitings and depictions are of a celestial alignment that includes Virgo, the Virgin; Leo and its 9 Stars; the three wandering stars of Mercury, Venus and Mars (making 12 stars in all), the moon, the sun and Jupiter (which aligns into the womb of Virgo). This alignment, according to some researchers, occurs in September of 2017, and only occurred previously at the time of the birth of Christ, or maybe to suit Alan's theory, John the Baptist.

    I am not surprised at all to find this depiction associated with the Templars. Bernard de Clairveaux was one of the first Catholic teachers to advocate the adoration of Mary and the sacred feminine. It is possible that the Templars have worshipped the sacred feminine because Virgo and this alignment marks a significant date and time for their faith system.

    Your thoughts?

    BTW, the official Catholic interpretation of Rev 12 denies any astrological meaning at all. Despite the actual preamble, "Their appeared a great sign in heaven", which starts our the passage. It is also interesting the Revelations was written by an unknown John. According to Alan Butler, John the Baptist was worshipped by the Templars. Is it possible that John of Patmos was a pseudonym and the text was written by the other John before his death? Certainly, Revelations fits the narrative of the Essenes. And, according to some, John was a member of the Essenes. And, according to Alan, the secret under Rosslyn is the Essene scrolls!

  24. Post about M hand shape on painting from show "Black Dog Salvage" saved from an old church.

  25. Hi Scott. This is a fascinating subject, but it needs to be approached with a bit more logic, I think, in a few places. For instance, if the "effeminate one" is Mary Magadalene in Da Vinci's "Last Supper" rather than John, where is John? The frail man must therefore be John (or at least another disciple)...not to be overlooked or forgotten by the master painter, I'm sure. Unless you have an explanation for a missing disciple. But, to me, what really seems to matter more is what Jesus told Nicodemus (in the Book of JOHN, chapter three), about being born again by believing in Him...Jesus.

    I could possibly go for an historically proven "Upper Level" or "Secret Brotherhood" of Templars having "sacred feminine" or "goddess" theology, but I don't see that translating into a Jesus Bloodline. We know that Cathars and Templars shared some theological views and had early ties, but as I understand it, any supposed "Merovingian" connection dealing with an offspring of Jesus, like a "Sarah," was based on the well-known hoax sucked up and regurgitated by Dan Brown, for fictional purposes.

    We saw the Merovingians featured in the book "The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail" (1982) where they are depicted as descendants of Jesus, inspired by the "Priory of Sion" story developed by hoaxter Pierre Plantard, back in the 1960's. As you already know, the "Priory of Sion" material has given rise to later works in popular fiction, most notably "The Da Vinci Code" (2003), which mentions the Merovingians. So, if not from Merovingians then, where do these "Venus Families" come from?

    I'm just saying that there's a big difference between the ideas of "linear descendants" and "lineal descendants" when referring to the Templars, when also considering the idea of special families (or perhaps even special knowledge). In other words, I think any substantial trinkle-down from the Cathars or Merovingians into Templers involved a line of thought, not a line of blood--or a bloodline. Just saying.

    1. Gunn,

      If you take the Bible literally then you have some problems; I don't take the Bible literally and don't think there ever was a John. I think it was Mary Magdalene all along. The Church simply pulled a little hocus pocus.

      Merovingian's a hoax? I think not. The ‘Priory of Sion’ another hoax? I think not. It’s awful convenient to claim “hoax” to muddy the water they don’t want to drink. They’ve been ignoring the facts and claiming hoax with the KRS for 116 years. Here again, I know not!

      Watch the second episode and then we'll chat.

    2. Gunn...

      I'm thinking primogeniture had its exceptions even when there
      were rules. Case in point, my had ancestor followed William the Conqueror to Hastings where he helped the illegitimate son of a
      Norman Duke step into an inheritance even though there already
      was a very legitimate king on the throne. The Bayeux Tapestry
      even invokes Halley's Comet as to why 1066 happened in the
      precise manner it did. A king is thought "de facto" for more than
      a year after a coronation, and can be challenged. Being able to
      ward off challengers allows a king to be thought "de jure" and approved of by heaven. The Dark Ages had their lore. The intellectual climate of Europe has a long continuity.

      If Constantine the Great traveled with his mother to the Holy Land
      to research his and her bloodline, as he attempted to further legitimize himself on a worldly throne, if his Masters of the Horse
      once had a secret military code they taught their descendants,
      in time did this become the code of Chivalry if his heirs ultimately
      were an oligarchy of powerful families who intermarried with each other, for we know we do not see in the historic record a clean direct
      primogeniture driven male bloodline over 5 centuries! Ought we
      to come to the conclusion Victorian ideas about royal successions
      are an 1800s invention and many of the older laws were often dormant and not rigorously enforced save perhaps for crimes
      and legal torts? Scott Wolter is not being wrong in his approach, even as he seems to fly against tradition! He may be tapping into
      a much older lore that stems from the chaotic transition Edward Gibbons wrote about, maybe the "Dark Ages" aren't as beak or dark...

    3. Well, I guess it boils down to credible genealogies then, if one is talking about bloodlines. We have the Biblical record of Christ's bloodline, leading up to Joseph…and just because Jesus was conceived through the Holy Spirit by Immaculate Conception, doesn’t necessarily do away with Joseph's DNA input. The question may become, was Jesus immaculately conceived using Joseph's DNA bloodline?

      And if the answer is yes (by further working of the Immaculate Conception), does this then do away with the concept of a virgin birth? No, I don’t think so, because God the Father easily could work a miracle of virgin birth while still utilizing Joseph’s DNA for His Son’s physical body. In this scenario, God remains Christ’s spiritual Father, while Jesus is descended from David, etc., as in: “That which is of the flesh is flesh, and that which is of the spirit is spirit.”

      We have the Biblical record of the genealogy of Jesus, but not any lengthy genealogy of any people claiming to be physically related to Him, after His ascension. All we have, apparently, is side-material related to a 20th century hoax. So, supposedly esoteric knowledge passed along through the generations is one thing, but the idea of special families passing along the genes of Jesus is quite another thing…and I can find no historical basis for it. Frankly, to me the notion of a Jesus bloodline is blasphemous, as it attempts to attribute carnality to a Divine Being.

      Apparently, the Dark Ages were dark and bleak because of disease and a temporary loss of cultural and scientific enlightenment after the Romans left. I don’t think genealogies amounted to much during this period of time. For one thing, Dan Brown was nowhere around, and the hoax his material was in part premised upon was unheard of (tongue-in-cheek) how did any prospective Venus families learn about their favored status back during this period of time, leading up to the Templars' beginnings? The Cathars? Nothing there. Merovingians? Nothing there…only the dusty remnants of a worn-out hoax.

      There just doesn’t seem to be any real, verifiable records of genealogical transition for these prospective, so-called Venus families from the time of Christ to the origin of the Knights Templar/Cistercians--or leading up to modern times, either, for that matter. Historically "honorable" family names and partial genealogies aside, there is only the 20th century hoax to draw upon for Jesus bloodline misinformation...which is unacceptable. In the Bible, Jesus has a real genealogy listed, but there isn't any credible ongoing genealogy to draw upon…because there simply isn’t one.

      (Actually, being related to Jesus in the flesh through His offspring is a form of blasphemous wishful thinking, in my opinion--even though I’m sure many people are related to Him through some of His relatives.)

    4. Gunn,

      Let's back up a second here. First, you are creating confusion by mixing in supposed events based on faith and trying to tie them to things like genealogical studies and it simply doesn't work. Therefore, some ground rules need to set so everybody is on the page.

      In this discussion we have to stick to real science, real facts, and real life. Therefore, we are not going to talk about "immaculate conception" and "virgin birth." In the real world these didn't happen with humans back then and they don't happen now either. So, for the sake of the discussion we are not going to consider faith-based ideas and beliefs. It will not further the discussion in a serious and meaningful way.

      The other thing I will ask you and others who post here is to refrain from making blanket, unsupported statements like you have. I would also appreciate references to Dan Brown's book in it's proper context; a fictional novel based on the real life research of Baigent, Leigh, and Lincoln.

      Are we clear about this? Otherwise, the discussion becomes a mess.

    5. Well, the Bible as an historic document mixes the physical genealogy of Jesus in with supernatural events, so I was merely doing the same. It's not a mess. We just have a common difference of opinion about the supernatural, I think, which drives us to our respective opinions. I think I understand where you're coming from with the bloodline theory; everything runs through a filter which removes anything spiritual or supernatural and we're left with your "secular" view of it, right? Simply put, I believe in the supernatural concerning Jesus, and you don't. With you, the Jesus bloodline theory is driven only by secular events...nothing supernatural. But, a problem is that some have combined that theory with the supernatural now, in modern times, akin to Jesus' actual bloodline in the Bible being mixed in (rightfully so) with supernatural events.

      Scott; come, let us reason together. Look at the strong oral and written account of several hundred people witnessing Christ's ascension all at the same time, and His temporary bodily presence on Earth being witnessed by many, many people after His crucifixion…in the 40 days before He ascended. And this was written down, recorded, which adds to the credibility of the thousands of witnesses. So, how can we eliminate this kind of important information in our discussion of history, when considering the very divinity of Jesus?

      I’m not being purposely obtuse or obstinate. I'm just asking, who and what are we going to believe in, in any given context? Based on what? For example, without any actual proof of pre-Columbus "European" disease being present in MN, you have what to draw upon in this belief? Only confidence or faith in what others have told you. So, to be open and fair, Scott, you should be willing to at least consider the eyewitness and written accounts of Christ's physical ascension into the sky if you're willing to believe in oral-only accounts of Native Americans concerning disease several hundred years old.

      It seems like you're trying to separate out faith and spirituality from the discussion of a so-called “Holy Bloodline,” and “Venus Families,” but you can't do it. We can’t really remove spirituality and faith from the discussion when it involves both Christianity and a proposed Jesus bloodline. We need information from both thoughts to make comparisons, and if possible, to sift out the truth of the matter.

      I can discuss this with no hard feelings, even though I think we’ve each already pretty much said what we wanted to say on the subject.
      I’m fairly confident that the discussion wouldn’t get messy as long as we both continued to be respectful. We are at great odds in our thinking; however, I don't think spirituality and religion can be removed from the discussion. It seems like maybe you're trying to eliminate a necessary two-sided inquiry into a “religious” topic like this, even though your Jesus bloodline story itself requires a huge leap of faith. (Said respectfully and thanks for the indulgence.)

    6. Gunn,

      I don't believe in the physical resurrection of Jesus; that doesn't happen in the world we live in. So if that didn't happen, how can I trust anything else that's in the Bible? You can't take it literally so that forces you to question all aspects of the story.

      The resurrection story is an allegory for the "rebirth" of the sun at the winter solstice when it "stands still" for three days. Now you know where the "3 days" thing in the biblical story comes from.

    7. Scott, these resurrections don't happen in the world we live in because it happened only once! (Somewhat tongue-in-cheek.) Obviously, our two individual viewpoints about a "Jesus Bloodline" are driven by our two different viewpoints of the supernatural. That's okay (in the secular world, at least). I won't pester you any more about this. Again, thanks for your openness in sharing some of your own personal views on the subject, and also for your indulgence in allowing me to share some of mine.

    8. Gunn,

      Jesus, Hercules, and King Arthur are metaphors and allegories for the Sun and its apparent path through the 12 constellations of the zodiac.

      Jesus- 12 Apostles = 13
      Hercules- 12 Labors = 13
      King Arthur- 12 Knights of the Round Table =13

      Interestingly, one representative of each of the 13 colonies and Elizabeth "Betsy" Ross as "Secretary"...or was she playing the role of MM???

      The 4 Gospels, 4 Pillars of Horus, 4 Horns on the Jewish Altar, and Ezekiel's 4 -headed beast (Lion, Eagle, Ox/Bull, and Man) ALL have the same meaning. The 4 fixed signs of the zodiac.

      This is why there are so many similarities between various "Deities". They are ALL astronomical personifications.

      I do find it very interesting, ol' Gwen could be seen as the "Bride of God" and quite possibly MM.



    9. Gunn... i must assume classic Newtonian physics assumes magic ISN'T and even if MIRACLES are, they are not everyday occurrences. On this point, i believe Isaac Newton would be in agreement. Our differences of opinion are why we have our BILL OF RIGHTS. Even with solid and accurate DNA evidence, some of this is pure inference. To a 95 percentile we might be comfortable with the merrie idea that RICHARD III's bones were recently found in the U.K under a parking lot
      on the site where Greyfriarsonce was. The age is loosely correct via
      the Carbon-14 dating, the DNA evidence via testing has confirmed an "X" chromosome like the Neville women indicated the knight's mother's people, and the "S curve" of the poor slain knight's
      backbones is like modern sufferers of the same who do not have the
      corrective surgery. a rich optimate's diet was indicated by the teeth,
      the battle wounds suggest Bosworth field and/or the War of Roses.
      It has been more than 500 years, but DNA does rule things in or out!

      Accurate DNA from the Turin Shroud if having an overlap with DNA
      from any of the bones connected to the Talpiot Tomb has high odds
      of being mutually re-enforcing! The two things can be under a big question for a while longer but if they have a DNA connection, they may significantly legitimize the other! the ability to read DNA is in its infancy as a sub-discipline of Genetics and Biology. Much of this is a string of logical inferences... and the cautious conclusions drawn!!!!!

      If some of Jesus's near kin reached the British Isles by 70 A.D we then
      do have a loose connection to the early Church that Saint Helena
      had her quiet connections to, if she was very discrete, prior to the birth of Constantine the Great. If the decision to codify Christianity is the main event that created a plethora of distinctive creeds in less than 100 years time, and not Trajan's rather focused persecution of the new religion via his power position, then we agree to disagree, but we
      are aware of the point in time when Worldly Christianity could emerge from its own underground as there were mass conversions. I think the
      ability to have secret codes in tandem with a new role in society is
      part of the legacy of the Great Conversion. The early Church hid...
      often~tymes we modern Christians do not have to hide things greatly.

  26. You're close about the 12 stars, but it's actually the 12 primary constellations of the zodiac; sometimes known as the "Twelve Apostles." In the painting pictured about in the Templar Commandery Church in France, painted in 1625, "Mary" is the 13th apostle. Of course, the 13th apostle is really Mary Magdalene.

    Bernard was certainly not a true Catholic, he was a mystic and leader of the early Cistercians. He was the most powerful man in Christendom, yet he never became Pope. He joined the order in 1113 with 30 family members from the Champagne Region, and it was this Venus Families coup that resulted in the Cistercians/Knights Templar becoming the most successful monastic order in history. Don't you find it strange that hardly anyone knows anything about them or who Bernard was? In my view, he's one of the most important historical figures in the world.

    The real history behind all of this has been distorted and intentionally masked to this day, so it takes a herculean effort, and a ton of patience to sort through it all. It's the greatest story in history and it needs to be told; correctly.

    1. Scott,

      You do realize this is the same role Elizabeth "Betsy" Ross played as "Secretary". I've always thought there was something to "Ross" and "Rosslyn". I The man known only to history as "The Professor" who suggested Betsy for the role, had to of been a family member. Possibly the Ross family.

      Best regards from an over-active mind,


    2. Anthony,

      Show me the evidence and I'll be happy to go there.


      I have to challenge your interpretation of the painting. It's clearly a depiction of Revelation 12:1-2. “A great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars on her head. 2 She was pregnant and cried out in pain as she was about to give birth."

      The painting has 12 angels crowning a virgin clothed in the sun and standing on the moon. It's a dead ringer. The link above is an explanation of the celestial alignment this refers to.

      Maybe the Templars believed the second coming, as is described in Revelation 12, was the child born of Mary and Jesus. I don't know. But that painting and many other Catholic statutes and paintings of the Virgin, are depictions of the Virgin described in Revelation. Otherwise, there is no need to depict the Virgin standing on a moon. What is controversial is to connect this scripture to the constellation Virgo and it's alignment on a specific date.

      Look at the Virgin's feet. Why is the moon under her feet? This is a depiction of a prophecy in Revelation 12.

    4. Interesting yes... In fact there once was a well connected Templar with a similar name ;)

      Many of his descendants live all over the world.
      Some came to America in the 1600s not long after the first Pilgrims.

    5. Wis3,

      Did it occur to you that both interpretations could be correct? In fact, they are it just depends on what lens, or ideology you are looking at the painting with. The presence of the "M" sign tells me this painting was intended to be viewed from both perspectives. The "codes" tip of the initiated viewer there is more going on than meets the eye.

      That is why you are so sure you see Revelation 12:1-2, because it is there. There is also another way of interpreting the image presented.

    6. two meanings? M = 1000 in Latin, one hand with an M hints at
      A.D 1000 and Pope Sylvester II's papacy. Two hands becomes
      M + M or A.D 2000, a year we all recently lived through! The two
      meanings as to the "M"s and the roses does tie into Revelations,
      DANIEL and all ideas of a rebirth. Does PART TWO have more
      about LEONARDO's travels in France? Or look at his notebooks?

  27. I find stories of the Bible very interesting and this episode was no let-down.
    one question I have is: why is that not all identified artwork of MM depicts the M hand gesture? Is it a matter of the artist being in the "know", or knowledge held by the person(s) who commissioned the piece, or just a artistic style of the time? I'm fascinated with the idea of it being symbolic but I just need more meat in order for the idea to become fact for me. This is not intended as criticism.
    I'm so intrigued by this that last night I was Googling everything from Art History to Venus families. And then it was the "water cooler talk" at work today.
    I think I've been bitten by the M bug.

    1. Sara,

      It boils down to the artist most likely, being initiated into a society that knew the truth. The "M" sign was just one way to preserve the secret knowledge through time; there were many other symbols, signs and token that preserved secret information. The "M" sign tells you where their allegiance's were in the ages old ideological battle.

  28. Hi, Scott! I mentioned this on your Twitter page, but the character limit stinks.

    I am a rabid fan of tracking down origins of cultural beliefs and breaking through the secrets of the Vatican. I have theories that would make a lot of people angry and may even have some problems due to my ongoing learning process. Still, they are based upon factual research I've done and until someone shows me why I am logically wrong, I will continue down those paths (and honestly, I welcome being corrected so I can get on the right track and find the right answers).

    As I research one thing, other unexpected things pop up. It's fun and exciting but my brain never seems to get a break and I have no outlet. I have absolutely no one to share these things with because it either goes completely over their heads or they ignore it because it hurts their religious beliefs.

    For instance, I was researching the origins of St. Patrick Day (Osiris, by the way) and inadvertently found out that the Vatican, after banning all other forms of paganism, still allowed the Cult of Freyja to exist within its walls.

    Freyja, as you know, is a goddess of Scandinavian lore. She was deified after becoming a prisoner to other gods and making her presence so strong. Many perceive Scandinavian gods and goddesses to have been mortals. I don't know about all of that even though I do favor Asatru as my spiritual path. Everyone believes differently because we all have something to learn and a destiny to fulfill, so really, it doesn't matter to me if people believe them to have been mortal or aliens or something from another plane of existence. Not important.

    What IS important is that after I discovered the Cult of Freyja, I found out about the Knights of Malta.

    Here is where you might really be interested.

    From my understanding through extensive research, the Knights of Malta are die-hard followers of the Virgin Mary. They are very similar to the Knights Templar, but are very much intertwined with the Vatican. In other words, they found favor with the Vatican while the Templar Knights found a death sentence.

    I found it quite interesting to read that they hold a seat at the UN, and just before he announced his retirement, Pope Benedict had a meeting with the Knights of Malta, who have a lot of control in the Vatican.

    I have a lot to say about this, a lot of theories that just keep breeding more theories, but I don't want to monopolize your comment space. I would really love to see you explore the Knights of Malta, though, and their seemingly odd parallels to the Knights Templar and worship of "Mary."

    I truly hope your show is renewed because it and you have taught me so much! I've been sent on fact-finding missions that I didn't even know were waiting to be explored. Thank you for all you've done for those of us craving intellect and truth.


    1. Susan,

      Glad to see you all spun up! The Knights of Malta are closely aligned with the Roman Church and are enemies of the Venus Families to this day. They are the "soldiers" of the patriarchal Vatican that are ideologically opposed to the monotheistic dualists. It's confusing sometimes to keep things straight and who is on whose side; both sides deliberately want it that way to keep the other, and us, off balance.

      It's not different than the spy game nation's play with each other that sometimes overlaps with the Church and the Venus Families. For example; Pope Francis is preaching a message filled with tolerance and change within the Church. He also flashes the "M" sign frequently. Does it mean he's a double agent with coincidental finger positions, or does he really believes the words he preaches. I want to believe his words and that his hand gesture is no accident.

    2. Hi, again! Thank you for replying! You're right, it is confusing. I was very sure I had a credible working theory, but I see it was based on some ignorance on my part. Thanks for setting me back on the right path!

      I am convinced the Vatican is hiding something besides the MM bloodline. I have looked into a lot of the architecture surrounding Vatican City, and for a religion that preaches only one god and the "evils" of paganism, they are very dedicated to several ancient pagan symbols.

      I was raised Roman Catholic. My dad was studying to become a priest when WWII broke out and he left to join the Navy. My upbringing was very strict Roman Catholicism. We followed traditions that the average Catholic let slide. What the Vatican said was literally the Word of God, and we were to obey every order they set down.

      I am the youngest of 5 kids, way younger than the others. By the time I came along, no one really had time for me. I was always in my own little world, so I learned to look for answers for myself. This was especially true whenever I would be punished for asking questions in school that we weren't supposed to ask.

      I always had one foot firmly planted in the wisdom that there was more out there that we weren't being told. I kept certain things I knew a secret when I found them out because I would get in trouble.

      I left the Church about 12 years ago. I've pretty much been on my own ever since. I've called myself "pagan" for lack of a better word, but even that isn't really right. I believe there is more out there even though I believe no one knows what that is.

      I have been more free than ever to research everything the way I couldn't when I was younger, so it's now all coming at me like a train. It's hard sometimes to slow it down enough to think it through. I try to piece these things together when they come to me, but I know I get some things wrong because I don't know as much about them as I think I do.

      One of the things I really am trying to figure out is the root to all of these religions, the origin. It's important to me because I believe the answers will lead to the civilization from where we all originate. I don't know why I need to know this, but I do. I'm fascinated with the Tower of Babel story because of this.

      This whole thing with Jesus, his mother Mary, and Mary Magdalene fits in with all of this because I believe the truth behind them is a secret of the Vatican that pertains to the Vatican's pagan roots. Researching all of these world religions, I see so many parallels between Jesus and several ancient gods.

      I believe the Knights Templar knew of the secrets of the Vatican, not just MM. They collected multiple artifacts, not just those of christianity, for a reason.

      I should stop now before I write a novel. I'm Thalia on Twitter, by the way. As you can see, the character limit really kills my creative rambling! I have about a million things to say about each episode of your show, but I don't want to take up too much of your time with my sometimes wild theories. I'm open to learning about everything, though. Thanks again for your reply!


    3. Hello Susan,

      I can relate to your words. If you're not already familiar, seek "Stellar Theology & Masonic Astronomy" by, Robert Hewitt Brown.

      This used to be an extremely rare book. It showed up in paperback form in 2008. Every time I pick the book up, I glean something new.

      Best regards,


  29. Mr Wolter, I greatly respect the fact that you present these controversial topics, AND you publicly defend them. That shows guts, belief and commitment.

    I have a two quick things to share:

    1) My jaw dropped when you talked about the ‘M’ in “The Templars' Deadliest Secret: The Chase".
    I'm in Massachusetts and have been finding what I've been calling a "3-pronged mark" on stones and in other forms for at least 3 years now.
    In the show, you called it an "M" rune, and I see that the Younger Futhark set of runes, aka the "alphabet of the Norsemen", call that 3-pronged mark an "M". I've been trying to connect this symbol to something - anything - for at least 3 years.

    2) You mentioned the Mide'win above. I believe there is a link between the copper trade, and the use of the cowrie (migiis) shell as currency. This shell is not native to North America and has been used as an ancient currency around the world, and it shows up along the Great Lakes (have your staff look into the Seven Fires Prophecy)

  30. Menotomy Maps,

    I'm not sure if there's a similar connection to the "M" rune in the Futhork, but I wouldn't be shocked at all if there was.

    The sacred Mi'gis shell is used in the "Resurrection/New Life" degree ritual of the Mide'win. I discuss this ritual in my "Akhenaten to the Founding Fathers" book (pages 172-3). There very likely is a link and its time this type of evidence was taken seriously be academics. The problem is almost none of them understand anything about Freemasonry or the secret societies of Native Americans; including the anthropologists and archaeologists who think they do.

    Professor Henrik Williams knows nothing about Freemasonry, yet still inappropriately renders a negative opinion about the KRS based on the Larsson Rune Rows that actually support the ancientness of the artifact. It's an irresponsible abuse of his perceived position of authority in the KRS debate. This baseless opinion is being spread as fact in the American media today. This is just one example of why I criticize certain academics for doing an irresponsible job in this arena.

  31. Hi Scott! Big fan of your show the last few years and your association with 'Tracking the Templars' & Who Discovered America. I find your investigations regarding the Templars timeline and the Holy Grail very intriguing and waiting with anticipation of the season finale. With that said, my one question to this is... if the Templars escaped Europe because of religious persecution, etc. where or why did they not settle in America? I've heard that they made it to Scotland, Denmark, Norway but why not America - the New Jerusalem? Your thoughts?

  32. Who ever said they didn't settle in America? You've heard of the Freemasons have you?

    Keep watching!

  33. Could be a reach, but M is also the 13th letter of our alphabet. A sign of the 13th tribe?

    Also I was thinking about the holy bloodline thing and your own suggestion to avoid taking things in the bible literally... "If you take the Bible literally then you have some problems; I don't take the Bible literally and don't think there ever was a John. I think it was Mary Magdalene all along."

    In your own words and I agree with you up to a point. If you don't believe that there ever was a John, then how does the same logic have you believing there ever was a historical Mary?

    What about applying your same theories to a non literal interpretation of the same data? If the tribes and bloodlines of scripture aren't to be interpreted literally in a historical sense, then what are they or what are they representing in a body of people?

    What is your symbolic interpretation of John? What happens if you apply that same non literal interpretation to Mary?

  34. The 13th tribe has been suggested. The reason we know both Jesus and Mary existed is because their ossuaries have been found in the Talpiot Tomb. Inscribed on their ossuaries are, "Jesus, son of Joseph", and "Mariamne Mara."

    "Mariamne" is a pet name for Mary Magdalene found in the "Acts of Phillip." "Mara" is a title of honor as in "Lord", "Master", or "Queen." There are 5 other inscribed ossuaries in the tomb. All seven correspond to the Royal Family; it's them.

    Da Vinci veiled the truth about who "John" was to avoid the wrath of the Roman Catholic Church. The "M" sign and a feminine looking "John" were clues to the secret truth that were hidden in plain sight for only the initiated to understand.

    1. Actually Miriamne is Mary in Aramaic and Hebrew, Mary is Anglicized. And truth be told Jesus in Hebrew and Aramaic is Yeshua. So his tomb if it was found which it hasn't, would have his name as Yeshua ben Yusef. But hey, since when did facts ever get in your way.

    2. Nice try John; in the Acts of Phillip, Mary Magdalene is referred to Mariamne, not Mirianme. And now that you've brought it up; you are quite correct. The name inscribed on the "Jesus" ossuary is Yeshua.

      Any other facts you'd like to try and catch me on? Please get your own facts straight before you try again.

      You don't have to believe it, but the tomb has been found.

    3. The name on the ossuary was actually Yeshua bar Yosef, or Jesus son of Joseph. The same tomb also had ossuaries with other names inscribed on them that may seem familiar; there was a Joseph, two ossuaries with variants of the name Mary, a Matthew and one that listed a Yehada bar Yeshua, or Judah, son of Jesus.
      But I don’t think that this is the Talpiot Tomb, the tomb I’m referring to was found in 1980 in Jerusalem, I think the Talpiot Tomb was found earlier than that. I don’t know which tomb you are referring to, Scott.


    4. Really Scott, you might want to go back for reading lessons. I said in Aramaic and ancient Hebrew. Mariamne is Greek, not Hebrew or Aramaic. It is actually the Greek form of Miriamne , so yes Scott, I did have my facts straight, unfortunately you did not. It is not a pet name, so please save your smart ass bs until you actually can get it right. By the way , Bernard? he was from Burgundy not Champagne and joined with a group of nobles youngers sons from the province not family members. And a lot of information exists about him if you bother looking.
      Irene, the Talpiot tomb was found in 1980, it was closed up after study and reopened in 2007. And yes it says bar on the ossuary, bar and ben are fairly interchangeable for son of, kind of like mac and mc in Scotland. And the tomb is a good place to start Scott , just because Simcha etal believe it's his tomb doesn't make it so .

    5. Irene,

      I said exactly that a couple of posts earlier and it is indeed the same tomb found in 1980. We are talking about one and the same tomb.

    6. John,

      You can dispense the arrogant and condescending tone thank you. There is a lot of work that's been done on the ossuaries that has not been made public yet, so you might want to curb some of your comments and keep your mind open until you have all the facts.

      I have done plenty of research on Bernard and while you are correct he was from Burgundy, the majority of the families who initiated, funded, and provided individuals to form the order were from the Champagne region.

      Disagree all you want, but the "I'm smarter than all of you" attitude doesn't help your cause.

    7. What would be fantastic would be to get DNA from the tomb and compare it to living persons. Or compare it to the Caiaphas nails found with bone fragments on them.

      Maybe obvious but I had to state it.

      Unfortunately getting the DNA might be hard to impossible after 2000 years. But who knows.

    8. Robert,

      There has been some DNA work done and more to come; I'm not at liberty to discuss however. It's not impossible.

    9. Scott:
      Thank you for clarifying that, you only mentioned two names on those ossuaries and I knew that there were several other names that are connected to the Jesus Family found in the tomb I knew about. Having a head cold may also have made me a bit slower then I otherwise would have been. I’m also glad to hear that more work is being done on those ossuaries; it would be a crime if they were just left to gather dust somewhere in a warehouse. If you hear of anything you can let us know about, please post it here, I, for one, would be very interested to hear what they have found out.
      Yes, I’m familiar with ben and bar, Mac and Mc, and Fitz and du and other additions to names in order to denote lineage. And by the way, when you refer to a person do try to use the entire name, it’s only polite to do so, even if you don’t like or agree with them, it’s Simcha Jacobovici, not Simcha, etal.
      And what exactly is your problem with this entire discussion, John? You won’t believe that this is the Jesus Family tomb because Christian theology tells you it can’t be? Do you feel compelled to attack anyone who thinks it is? To be honest, I don’t know if it is or if it isn’t but I’m willing to keep an open mind about it. I’ll leave deciding this up to the experts, which I am not. I do know that, unless this is something like a 2,000 year old hoax, the probabilities of that tomb, with those names on the ossuaries, belonging to another family is somewhat small.

      Before I go, I do like your show and I see I’m going to have to read your books. I like the fact that conventional wisdom on history is being challenged, it needs to be. It really is too easy to dismiss something as a hoax or say that something never happened, and then ignore it. And that should never be allowed to happen. And while I may not always agree with your analysis, the questions you pose are always intriguing.

    10. If you are interested in what I've written about the Talpiot Tomb research to date, I have some pretty good stuff in my latest book, "Akhenaten to the Founding Fathers: Mysteries of the Hooked X."

      I think both you and John will get a better sense of where I'm coming from, and where I'm going, with this subject matter.

    11. Arrogant and condescending tone? God you are truly pathetic. You state that mariamne is a pet name and it's not, them you try and make me look bad by misstating the true name and making a smart assed comment about my getting my facts straight when in fact you, like usual don't know what you're talking about.Then you make another untrue statement about Bernard and his "family members " when in fact you had the wrong province and they weren't family members. And now you state that the majority of they families and funding came from champagne, sorry to tell you but once again you don't have a clue what you're talking about. The brothers actually were a dissatisfied bunch from the Benedictines, it's the reason they wore white cassocks,the wool was white and a show of poverty. The leaders Alberic was from champagne, however, Robert was of Burgundy and Stephen was English. The rest of the brothers were from all over France. There is no evidence that a so called "venus family" started the order and quite frankly is rather a pathetic attempt by you at relevance. By the way you talk of arrogance? you say that you apply the standards of court to prove your BS, however, in your episode on David Crockett ( yes Scott it is correct to use his proper name) you completely ignore the report by the handwriting expert and instead you state that you have compared handwriting while doing your " investigation of the KRS " and so because it doesn't fit into your rather laughable thesis you ignore it. You , Scott are not qualified as a handwriting expert. In any court in the land your testimony would be thrown out. Arrogant and condescending? yes you are. The sad thing is , your actually seem to believe your BS. Irene, IN saying Simcha ,etal, I'm refering to him and his partners, I didn't feel like typing out all their names because quite frankly they have completely been discredited. I'm sorry ifd that bursts your bubble but instead of reading this blog you might try and do some research.And also nice try but I'm not a Christian but unlike Wolter I am a historian , and in fact Yeshua , Yusef , etal were and are among the most common of Jewish names, so no, it's not somewhat small.

    12. Uh, John Meyers,
      Before you proceed with your arrogant comments, could you enlighten the plebeians here of the academic achievements that support your claim that you are “a historian?” BTW, any academic worth his arrogant salt would understand that the most appropriately arrogant way to deliver such a claim would be to say “I am AN historian.” Just sayin'

      I am, kind sir, respectfully yours,
      Steve St. Clair, your humble plebeian servant

    13. BTW, John Meyers,
      Being the “historian” you are, I know you’ll understand the importance of quoting your sources as the thrashing I’m about to deliver unto you unfolds. Or you could save yourself the necessity of working your stubby little fingers over your sweaty keyboard and just admit it’s Wikipedia on every comment.

    14. Let us begin, dear John Meyers,

      You pronounced, “Simcha ,[sic] etal, [……] have completely been discredited.” Quote your sources dear historian. Whom precisely discredited “Simcha , etal [sic]“ This is gonna get really tiresome if you don’t quickly learn to spell.

      I am, kind sir, respectfully yours,
      Steve St. Clair, your humble plebeian servant

    15. My Dear Mr. Meyers,
      I’m not going to respond to your entire post, just the portions of it addressed to me.
      I see that you don’t mind typing very long posts but when it comes to typing out an entire name you get lazy? If you didn’t want to type all of the names you alluded to, typing Simcha Jacobovici and partners would have been sufficient for both identification and courtesy.
      In your claim that Simcha Jacobivcici has been discredited, I can only echo Mr. St. Clair and request that you provide your sources. While I am aware the Mr. Jacobovici has made more than one controversial claim, I was unaware that any of them has been totally discredited and debunked. Again, please provide your sources for your blanket statement that these claims have been discredited.
      You seem to be missing the point that I was trying to make about the names on the ossuaries. I am aware that several of the names were fairly common in the era in which ossuaries were used as a burial method, which if I am not mistaken was only for about a hundred years or so. My point was that, even with the commonality of these names, the probability of these names all being found in one tomb and the people not being related to the Jesus Family would have to be small. You can’t talk about the commonality without talking about the proximity for the ossuaries. I get the fact that if you found just a Jesus ossuary you can’t make a claim that it has to be him, even if it were found with a Mary or Joseph ossuary, but the fact that all of these ossuaries, with all the names that were on them, were found in one place has to mean something you just can’t dismiss even if you want to. I know I’ll never convince you, your mind is just made up that it can’t be so, but I’d much rather keep an open mind about some things, which is something I doubt you ever will.
      And oh, two more items. I never said that you were Christian, just that it was possible that you were influenced by Christian theology, which is possible if you think about it. And while I don’t claim to be ‘a historian’ such as yourself, I’ve been reading history of all kinds since I was a child, which is possibility since before you were born. I do prefer to keep an open mind about many subjects, it allows me to grow and learn something new because if you don’t learn, you atrophy and die.
      As ever,

    16. Mr. Meyers,

      I would like to echo Irene's comment for you to cite a source where Simcha's work had been CREDIBLY discredited. I use his first name as he is a friend who I greatly respect; mostly for his courage to stand up to the severest of criticism which has including death threats. I stand beside him as his friend, and I stand behind his Talpiot Tomb/Jesus and MM research for I have made small contributions to it.

      With regard to the Jesus ossuary, you clearly don't have a full understanding about which you speak. Yeshua was indeed a common name in the first century, but of the two dozen or so ossuaries with that name inscribed, most are a reference to the biblical Jesus, not the name of the person whose remains are in the box.

      To be fair, there is a lot of data relating to the Talpiot ossuaries that has not been made public. My advice to you Mr. Meyers, is to temper your comments, and keep your mind open until you are privy to more facts. I would also ask you to take a moment to reflect before posting more comments.

  35. Hi Scott,
    I LOVE your show and the truth you share! It's about time people listen.
    Was wondering if you noticed the Hooked X AND the M in DaVinci's drawing 'Vitruvian man' ? Interesting that both symbols appear in a drawing that is so well known. I am an artist and now I will be searching through all my art books in a whole new light.
    Off to buy your book right now, can't wait to read it!


    1. G. Matta,

      I knew about the "M" sign in the Vitruvian Man, but never noticed a Hooked X? Try looking at the hands of Adam and God in Michelangelo's work at Sistine Chapel...

    2. Look at the hand on the upper left of the picture, then turn the picture clockwise, to me the 4 arms look like an X and the thumb & index finger on that hand look like the hooked shape. Maybe I'm just wishing it is!
      Wow, I am freaking out at how many M's appear now...I am digging through my Michelangelo books on the Vatican frescoes! Thank you so much!

    3. It is fun to look for them isn't it? You're going to see them everywhere now.

  36. I guess I should have narrowed the Templar timeline on settling in the New World for you.... I understand that a number of the founding fathers were FreeMasons so that puts it in around the 1700s. I suppose the KRS puts them there in 1362 so I just wondered why they did not settle in America between those 2 dates...

    1. Freemasonry has been around a lot longer than that. The KRS was an early preemptive land claim designed to protect their native brethren from the Christians. It was usurped in the early 1700's by Verendrye 's more specific land claims for the French. In the end, the French Venus Families worked in consort with the Founding Father's to ensure the New Jerusalem would be consistent with their ideals; and it is.

      The Venus Families know that for humanity to survive, people have to come to the realization themselves that the ideas of tolerance and balance are the only way. Right now, I'm not very optimistic.

  37. Almost straight off the wikipedia page, you sure those are your own thoughts? I'm a little wary (and weary) of found artifacts that are "verified" by the same so called experts that planted them.

    How about a non literal interpretation?

    Perhaps it represents you and your own triune self. John is the father, Mary the mother, and Jesus the son. Exactly the same as Osiris, Isis, and Horus in Egyptian mythology.

    Bringing it closer to home, John is you, Mary is you, and Jesus is you in the various aspects of your own trinity. As you rotate through these aspects the relationship they have to one another changes accordingly. Mary is the wife to the father, the mother to the son, and companion to both once father and son become "as one". You don't need artifacts or any facts at all, you can plainly see it within you.

    Now I know why they say "the devil is in the details" :)

    This was for you, as I expect you'll censer it out after reading it. I have a couple friends that know you and say you're an alright guy, which is a much higher compliment that it may sound. I've been following your show trying to figure out what you really believe about all this stuff. I'd very much like to share ideas with you if it truly is your passion and life's work. If it's anything else, like money or supporting beliefs that aren't your own, it would be a waste of time for both of us.

    This isn't really the place to share those ideas. Here at best it's a sportsman like competition and I'm looking for more of a cooperative sharing of concepts and ideas.

    Thank you for your time and attention Scott, I wish you (and everyone) the best of luck in finding everything they seek and more :)


    1. John,

      You have me confused? What thoughts are you talking about and which artifacts do you mean that were planted and then verified by the same people?

  38. Hi Scott,

    I am a big fan and wanted to thank you for helping me realize that the history we were taught is not the true history of our country. The history of our country is much more powerful, meaningful and spiritual than one can actually believe. I do also not take your shows or word as fact, but rather use it as a guide to research the topics on my own. However, I usually come to the same conclusions!
    My question is with the 'M hand gesture' on statues and paintings you have uncovered. You mentioned about Pope Francis using this same hand gesture as no coincidence. Do you think it has something to do with the Jesuit Order? Did you ever hear of the ‘Triad Claw/Marrano gesture’? Do you also know that Adolf Hitler used the same hand gesture in many pictures and paintings as well as other notable people in history? Do you think that if Adolf Hitler used the same 'hand gesture' as the statues and pictures you referred to, that it would invalidate your theory. Do you think the gesture can be more masonic in meaning? I am looking forward to your thoughts. The links to the info I am referring is listed below:

    Best Regards - Joe S.

  39. Joe,

    Yes, I am very aware that the "M" sign hand gesture has been used by people who are not supporters of the J & MM story. The Jesuits would do anything they could to hijack a symbol with a meaning they are adamantly opposed to and turn it into something else. The Church as hijacked nearly every symbol they use from ancient cultures long before they came into existence.

    Hitler would use anything and everything at his disposal if he thought he it would benefit him. I'm sure he became aware of the symbol and tried to use it to his advantage somehow.

    The site is a great one for looking at examples of historical figures being portrayed using the symbol.

  40. Any more anti-Semitic sites you'd like to suggest for your loyal following?

  41. No one is trying to promote anti-Semitism; least of all me. The link was posted only to give readers an opportunity to see multiple examples of the "M" sign found in historical art and photographs. Nothing more, nothing less.

    Please don't try to spin this into something it's not OK?

    1. Something about lying down with dogs comes to mind. Fleas is it?

    2. Incidentally "Mr./Mrs. Fleas",

      I asked two friends who are Jewish to look at the website in question and whether they felt it was blatantly anti-Semitic and they both said, "No." One added that if someone were trying to interpret the site as being anti-Semitic they could, but didn't feel it was inappropriate or offensive to post the link of the "M" sign examples. Especially in light of the context in which it was presented.

      If it passes the test with my Jewish friends, it's good enough for me.

    3. You have got to be kidding me. I would reprint the blatant, offensive anti-Semitism of that site and rub your face in it, if it wasn't so abhorrent for me to do so. That you can't see it confirms my diagnosis. Good night and goodbye.

    4. Hello Scott,
      Two things.
      1) Did you notice that Jason C's picture on this website? He is as equally offensive as AH.
      2) Have you considered the potential true intent of the individual posting this site? I hope you are well aware that not all your posters who claim to be supporters are such. Someone may or may not have had an agenda knowing that the M hand gesture would attract your attention. I have no doubt your posting was only to exemplify the M sign but please be cautious of what material you deem to be fitting for public posting as it may come back to haunt you.
      You seem like a nice, honest man, and I do not find you or your research offensive but some could, and do with the posting of a site that contains AH.
      From one of your supporters who appreciates the AU show, it's content, and your research, I respectfully ask that you please reconsider removing the post. The last thing we need is for your research to not be taken seriously because of false claims of anti-semitism. I realize it's your choice but keep in mind that your supporters, such as me, will be associated with these claims, too.
      Looking forward to tonight's episode. Bittersweet. Hoping for a season 4!
      A Supporter

    5. A Supporter,

      First, I have never thought about his picture that way, but I guess one could make the claim there is a slight resemblance. I don't particularly care for Jason's tactics in the way he analyzes things and expresses his opinions, but I don't equate him at all with that notorious character.

      Second, I'm well aware of the various ways that "debunkers" try to deceive and hide their identity and true motives. Unfortunately, I don't have the time, or the patience, to try and psychoanalyze the people who post here. I give the negative ones enough rope to hang themselves and when they cross the arbitrary line I have drawn, which is usually three exchanges, with name-calling, race-baiting, or an overall lack of anything productive I ban them. It's that simple.

      In this case, I feel the "M" sign examples on the page in question are helpful and fun to look at. It's unfortunate the site included Adolph Hitler, but one bad apple shouldn't spoil the very large bunch in this case. What's important here is intent. Perhaps the poster was trying to plant a land mine hoping it would somehow stain my character and undermine my research. This is standard procedure of the debunkers, and sadly, of some academics that I have interacted with. I'm confident the people who matter understand who I am and what I'm trying to do and will take the information in the spirit it was intended.

      The point about sensitivity was brought up, I addressed it with two friends whose opinion's I value, and both said leave it on there. I do appreciate your concern, but if this is how the detractor's think they can win the battle, then in reality they have already lost.

    6. I was not implying any resemblance of JC and AH other than their disrespect of others beliefs. Nor was I suggesting that you become a psychoanalyst.
      Good luck to you and your quest to enlighten us.
      A Supporter

    7. Supporter,

      Some people have actually suggested that resemblance, so I apologize for the confusion. I understand where you were coming from and simply expounded on the suggestion that some people who post give a false impression of their true motives which you are quite right about.

      It's all good and I hope you enjoy tonight's show.

  42. My husband and I really enjoy your show. I found the episode about the M sign very intriguing as it resonates with what I believe about MM. After watching this episode, I came across a picture of King George III in a book of Jane Austen. In this picture he is posed with the M hand to which it piqued my curiosity. After reading the above comments and going to the above site featuring examples of historical figures portraying that symbol and again seeing another version of King George III with the M sign, I am further intrigued. I've read about some of those historical figures and how they are part of the Freemasons or affiliated with enlightened ideas. I'm beginning to believe that these people who are identified with the secret organizations of the 300 committee, TLC, Bilderbergers, etc. along with those historical figures with the M sign are being demonized and the site spouting anti~Semitic BS to these people as a smoke screen to what they might possibly support and believe in. It's easier to have us all fearful of some secret Illuminati group and have them be the harbingers of New World Order in a negative light so that if they do have valid proof and are supporters of MM and the bloodline, they are discredited with all the stuff being spouted about them. I don't know, it's just the train of thought I'm currently on at the moment.
    Anyhow, I appreciate your research and time into MM. I look forward to the day that the truth about her will be common knowledge and no longer kept silent.
    Are you familiar with Margaret Starbird and Kathleen McGowans' works about MM as well?
    Best of luck to you in your endeavors!

    1. Jumping Butterfly,

      I think you could be right on the mark about certain people and groups being demonized used essentially as pasty's by other group to further their own ends. One example is the poster directly above trying to suggest I somehow have anti-Semitic leanings by allowing the link with many examples of the "M" sign. I will not allow the discussion to be distracted by attempts to twist things into character assassination.

      Margaret Starbird is a friend who I talked to just the other day; I love her books. I have never met Kathleen McGowen or read her work yet.

  43. When will we know if there will be a season 4?

    1. Probably within the next couple of weeks?

    2. Season One is now on Netflix!
      I'm hoping there is a Season 4!!
      I think you are going to see more
      people checking this blog out!!!

    3. Nice! the more the merrier I say!


      "Archaeologists from the Israel Antiquities Authority found 10 limestone burial boxes, known as ossuaries, and 6 had inscriptions. The remains were reburied, as required by Jewish religious tradition. But the ossuaries were catalogued and stored in a warehouse and mostly ignored until Amos Kloner, an archaeologist, wrote an article in 1996 about the inscriptions on the ossuaries found in the Talpiot tomb.

      The documentary’s case relies on the interpretation of those inscriptions, and Mr. Jacobovici’s team of scholars asserts that they translate as Jesus, Mary, Mary Magdalene and Judah, as well as Matthew and Joseph, who, according to the filmmakers, were brothers of Jesus.

      Andrey Feuerverger, a mathematics professor at the University of Toronto, calculates that the odds that all six names would appear together in one tomb are 1 in 600, calculated conservatively — or possibly even as much as one in one million.

      Mr. Feuerverger explains his method while standing against a chalkboard covered in equations, but an easier explanation is an analogy to the Beatles, included in the Discovery Channel press kit. Future archaeologists who may find a tomb in Liverpool with the names John, Paul and George may consider the names too common to draw conclusions. But if the name Richard Starkey, the real name of Ringo, is also there, then bells will ring. (That example was presumably left out of the film for fear of appearing impious; John Lennon got into huge trouble in 1966 by saying that the Beatles were “more popular than Jesus.”)

      Mary Magdalene is the Ringo of this inquiry. The film argues that the inscription “Mariamene e Mara” is a form of the name Mariamne. “There’s only 1 chance in 600 that the Talpiot tomb is not the Jesus family tomb, if Mariamne can be linked to Mary Magdalene,” the narrator says. “But can she?”

      And Mariamne, according to the filmmakers, is the name given Mary Magdalene in the Acts of Phillip, a fourth-century text about Mary Magdalene’s brother that is disputed by some scholars but is taken as gospel in the film.

      Almost all the scholars interviewed support the filmmakers’ case, though one doubting Thomas is included, David Mevorah, a curator at the Israel Museum. “Suggesting that this tomb was the tomb of the family of Jesus is a far-fetched suggestion,” he says. “And we need to be very careful with that.”

      The filmmakers are careful to build suspense around Mr. Jacobovici’s efforts to rediscover the tomb that was sealed and reburied to make room for an apartment complex in the 1980s."



    5. If you've read my "Akhenaten" book, you'd know I've been involved in this research. If we get another season you will hear about the Talpiot Tomb. That I can promise you.

  44. Hello Scott,
    First I must say I don't understand why people have so much anger and hostility toward your theories or the results from your tests. Results are results yet they try to dismiss them is absolutely bizarre. Yet they seem to go out of the way to post when they could easily turn the channel or read other things but I digress.

    Do you feel Jesus' bloodline, if it didn't stop anywhere else down the line, are aware they're his direct descendants? I know family history you can trace it back pretty far but, wouldn't it be highly unlikely you could find enough documentation going back to prove family X is indeed his descendant, especially if they're trying to hide it?

    In an unrelated question and I apologize if you already answered this and I didn't hear or see it but, is there a certain reason the hoax part made the final cut of the episode? Do you believe the two gentlemen that told you about the carving were indeed the culprits who made it?

    I'm always entertained by the show. My father and I watch it every week together and it always brings about interesting conversations. Keep up the great work.

    With the utmost respect,
    Andy L.

    1. "First I must say I don't understand why people have so much anger and hostility toward your theories or the results from your tests. Results are results yet they try to dismiss them is absolutely bizarre. "

      As a frequent viewer and impartial witness, I must say the anger and hostility is generally on Mr. Wolter's part when his research is questioned and his logic, or lack of same, is examined more closely. He will publish only enough criticism here to give him the appearance of being fair. However, when it doesn't go his way and he's led into a corner from which he cannot escape, he plays victim to some sort of abuse. Assaulted by logic and facts is what it truly is. An assault he is ill-equipped for.

      Can't wait for season 4!

    2. Anonymous,

      My question to you is how much repetition of empty criticism is appropriate? And what exactly do you mean by "when it doesn't go my way?" Disagreeing with me doesn't mean your right and I'm wrong. Aren't we all trying to get the right answer?

      What you fail to understand is that personal attacks, name-calling, and dismissive statements doesn't "win" and certainly doesn't further the discussion we're trying to have here.

      You mentioned logic and facts; I am perfectly prepared to discuss exactly that, but will only give unabashed, persistent skeptics three chances before they are cut off. If you're going to question my work then be specific. Ask me questions about the research I've done and I will answer them. It might help to read my reports and books before spouting off. I have said this multiple times, yet all I hear are the same tired, "it can't be because we said so" arguments that are what led to the convoluted history we have.

      Academic peer review in this arena has failed; period. We are bringing new facts, and new research to the discussion and instead of taking it seriously, it's an all out, defensive strategy based, attack. Bring on the assault, but load your weapons with legitimate ammo, not nonsense, OK?

    3. "My question to you is how much repetition of empty criticism is appropriate?"
      Calling it "empty" is rather a loaded way of putting it, as if any query which questions your claims are devoid of legitimacy.

      "And what exactly do you mean by "when it doesn't go my way?""
      Just trying to me impartial, but it doesn't appear you're doing very well in defense of your ideas on this one.

      "Disagreeing with me doesn't mean your right and I'm wrong. Aren't we all trying to get the right answer?"
      Problem is, you start off with your right answer and then seek to justify it by selective manipulation of only evidence that suits your purpose. A proper methodology would be to work with the evidence until it reveals a conclusion; not work the evidence itself to justify a conclusion. With the episode which is the subject matter of this blog entry, it appears you're doing just that. Running from place to place to cherry-pick evidence to fit your scheme, when certainly numerous other interpretations or explanations might apply.

      "What you fail to understand is that personal attacks, name-calling, and dismissive statements doesn't "win" and certainly doesn't further the discussion we're trying to have here. "
      You discussed above other researchers that seemingly supported your work, but once it was pointed out that they didn't, you maligned them precisely in this regard.

      "You mentioned logic and facts; I am perfectly prepared to discuss exactly that, but will only give unabashed, persistent skeptics three chances before they are cut off. If you're going to question my work then be specific. Ask me questions about the research I've done and I will answer them. It might help to read my reports and books before spouting off. I have said this multiple times, yet all I hear are the same tired, "it can't be because we said so" arguments that are what led to the convoluted history we have."
      Logic and facts speak for themselves. Sometimes it can't be because of the way you say it. Once illogical patterns are revealed, it doesn't matter what you say, the conclusions are faulty.

      "Academic peer review in this arena has failed; period. We are bringing new facts, and new research to the discussion and instead of taking it seriously, it's an all out, defensive strategy based, attack. Bring on the assault, but load your weapons with legitimate ammo, not nonsense, OK?

      Have you ever submitted your work for academic peer review? Quite frankly, I don't believe the academic world has attacked you, but instead dismissed you and your ideas. I just don't think you're truly on their radar. The attacks, or critiques, seem to come from the free expression that is the Internet, the great equalizer for both you and your audience. But if there are published critiques or reviews of your work by those in respected fields, I would be very interested if you could share them.

    4. Let me address your responses in order:

      Name-calling is not legitimate criticism. I think I'm quite capable of discerning what is and isn't legitimate criticism.

      I disagree with your opinion on how well I'm doing, but that's fine.

      The episode in question is a television presentation of our research, which is not thorough and complete. The fact is we have already followed proper scientific methodology and reached a conclusion based on the evidence. The only problem is you don't agree with it.

      The other researchers mentioned, Dick Nielsen and Henrik Williams, are in no position to evaluate my geological work, yet they still feel compelled to do so. It may appear I am maligning them, when in fact, it was personal issues that led to their incongruent actions, not the facts.
      You don't have to like it, but it is what happened.

      People don't always understand the context and implications of certain facts and they need to be explained. We call these interpretations.

      Yes, my geological work on the KRS was peer-reviewed as I have repeatedly stated. What I object to are academics in disciplines outside of geology, like Nielsen and Williams, among others in the soft sciences, who feel they are in a position to review my work.

      May I ask why you think you are in a position to effectively and appropriately evaluate my work? Are you a geologist? For that matter, exactly who else is available to peer review my relative-age dating work of man-made carvings and inscriptions in rock, beyond the professors who have already done so? To my knowledge, I don't know anyone else I the world in an academic capacity doing anything remotely similar. Further, my reports and books are already published and available to the world. Have at it.

    5. "The episode in question is a television presentation of our research, which is not thorough and complete. The fact is we have already followed proper scientific methodology and reached a conclusion based on the evidence. The only problem is you don't agree with it. "
      I wouldn't say that's the only problem, but I look forward to the conclusion tomorrow night.

      "The other researchers mentioned, Dick Nielsen and Henrik Williams, are in no position to evaluate my geological work, yet they still feel compelled to do so. It may appear I am maligning them, when in fact, it was personal issues that led to their incongruent actions, not the facts.
      You don't have to like it, but it is what happened."
      If they are not in position to evaluate your "geological" work, would you then admit that you are in no position to evaluate their linguistic work? Would you further admit that the Museum Committee of the Minnesota Historical Society back in 1910, which featured a leading geologist of his time of whom I'm sure you're aware of, conceded that the conclusions of their report needed to be verified by "a competent specialist of the Scandinavian languages" for approval? So it's not like geology has the final say in this matter, whether it's now or a hundred years ago.

      "Yes, my geological work on the KRS was peer-reviewed as I have repeatedly stated."
      Please provide me with a cite or link to such peer review of your work. I am genuinely interested in reading it and it would do well to defend your claims.

      "What I object to are academics in disciplines outside of geology, like Nielsen and Williams, among others in the soft sciences, who feel they are in a position to review my work."
      Yet with a geology degree, you are able to rewrite history and give your accounts of it that have nothing to do with geology, but instead are your unabashed interpretations of art and written works of the past.

      "May I ask why you think you are in a position to effectively and appropriately evaluate my work? Are you a geologist?"
      Your work far exceeds the field of geology, and you have opened yourself up to evaluation from a variety of fields of study.

      "For that matter, exactly who else is available to peer review my relative-age dating work of man-made carvings and inscriptions in rock, beyond the professors who have already done so?"
      Have these professors you speak of reduced their approval to writing? If so, please provide me with a means to review it.

      "To my knowledge, I don't know anyone else I the world in an academic capacity doing anything remotely similar."
      You can contact these folks: They might be able to help you find others.

      "Further, my reports and books are already published and available to the world. Have at it."
      I will check my local library.

  45. Hello Mr. Walter,

    I was looking back at my own blood line and was surprised to find almost a bouncy angel playing a piano, but also a scoundrel or two who got mixed in. I guess our families are not immune from situations involving generations and generations of people filling different roles. I was hoping my family name would be more special, but oh well! Thats what I get for looking too close, I guess.

    Over on another blog web-site not very well talked about, I see that Gunn's rational mind is being questioned just because he believes "once a coverup, always a coverup". Because he thinks the JFK whack job was mostly the MOB, yeah, I saw that, and a coverup by the government. I know he was saying Jeb Bush or H. Clinton would either one of them fit into a generation after generation coverup. To me, this is rational thinking if you believe in a coverup, and Gunn's not alone there!.

    I saw someone even thinks Gunn is not real on this blog of yours, Mr. Walter. To me, that is not rational thinking. I know Gunn likes it that you believe in that KRS runestone, so I'm not surprised he showed up to talk about it. And those stoneholes, of course.

    I like alot of what your doing. Keep up your good work about sharing the reality of those tough old Norse people reaching way into America WAY before other white people dared to showed up, like those Italians and French, not to overlook your German ancesters, and Jews and Polish folks, too, et. cetera.
    (We know Asians came before and after. In my book, they get the most credit all the way around.)

    1. Mr. Lister,

      Not sure what point(s) you were trying to make with this post, but I can assure you Mr. Gunn is a real person. Although we haven't met personally, I am convinced of his actual existence. While we do agree the KRS is genuine, our opinions diverge on many of the details and that's fine.

      My last name is Wolter; with an "o' by the way.

    2. Sorry about my confusion and missing your correct spelling. That link by my name also didn't show up things right. I wanted to show you my angel relative playing the piano. He was a real fine Christian man, may be even the most nobelest Lister ever born! I like studying about blood lines, but I am disappointed by a few scoundrel I found along the way of my searching. Mostly on the west Coast for some reason???

      Here's great-uncle Hovie playing the piano as good as Jerry Lee Lewis, and singing too. I heard he had a hard time sitting still. Check out his great Lister hair!

      Mr WOLTER, I'm glad you been staying here in the heat answering all kinds of questions and insults. I'm all for another season next time around!

      -Ernie Pyle Lister

    3. Ernie,

      I apologize if I came off a little gruff. Your relative looks like quite the talented character; good stuff.

      I'm not going anywhere; the barbs are like gnats, they annoy, but don't leave a mark.

      Just call me Scott.

  46. People really need to read/re-read Scott's books -- especially the last two. The "dotted R" is really a very key point. As the rune was not known until 1935, this makes a very interesting and embarrassing moment for the detractors. I've been at this on and off for 5 years and when someone starts the conversation by saying "your misinformed........". The answer is "I have the book in front of me - do you.....". Of very special note would be chapter 43 of the "Hooked X". For the detractors (noise) to be taken into consideration, they must answer "in full" all of the conditions that have been presented.

    Of very special note in section "spirit pond rune stones facts" are items #6, #7 and #11. I will quote this item.

    "The Spirit Pond Map Stone has the same arced "X" symbol...that appears on only one known medieval French astrolabe (#191) that is dated circa 1350 to 1400......".

    I would enjoy a discussion regarding the twelve plates used. And remember, the stones were found at latitude 44N. The noise makers will have to provide answers as to why that latitude for that one. This rune is listed in David A. Kings book "The Ciphers of the Monks". I have to go to UC Berkeley to see a copy of this book as the cost is very substantial.

    The idea that a "beachcomber", "arrowhead hunter" or even a "forger" in the USA could even replicate or even have knowledge of this French symbol, astrolabe and knowledge in its use (latitudes) and then to carve it on "pebbles" found in a river in the USA is "untenable".

    The person who found the stone ....... wound up committing suicide in 1994.

    1. Explorer Dave,

      A couple is years ago I read the French astrolabe with arced "X" was now thought to date to the 1200's. I'd have to find the source, but the salient points remain the same. I looked at over 600 astrolabes that date back over a thousand years and only one had that symbol being used for the number 40 on many of the 12 plates. It's an ingenious symbol and to me along with a number of scholars I've spoken to (even Dick Nielsen was impressed after our breakup) who said it was very strong evidence to support the authenticity of the all four Spirit Pond Rune Stones. Remember, by association, if one is genuine, logic demands they all must be.

    2. Hello Scott,

      Could you please expound a little further regarding, "that symbol being used 40"?

      I'll eventually get to buy your book. I haven't been allowed since winning an auction for a rare book. As you may know, when the rare ones come up for auction, better have deep pockets. My wife's still ticked.

      Best regards,


    3. Anthony,

      On the Spirit Pond Rune Stones there are several symbols on the opposite side of the map. Two of those symbols refer to the location of the mouth of the Kennebeck River where Spirit Pond is located at 44 degrees latitude north.

      The two symbols on the bottom of the stone are the arced X and what many scholars and researches have mistakenly called a "ladder." The symbol is in fact, a form of Pentadic number which in this case is the number 44. This can only be a reference to the location at the mouth of the Kennebec River where the stones were found, where Spirit Pond likely served as a safe harbor for this particular pre-Columbian (1401-1402) Templar expedition.

      The arced X symbol is a combination of the Roman "X" for 10, and the Hindu Arabic symbol for 4. 4 times 10 equals 40, which is confirmed by how exactly the symbol is being used on the astrolabe, perhaps the very astrolabe I saw at Oxford in 2006. If so, it means that Templar expedition made it to North America and back to Europe successfully.

      In my mind, the "arced X" symbol alone proves the authenticity of the Spirit Pond Runes Stones just as powerfully and conclusively as the Dotted R proves the authenticity of the Kensington Rune Stone.

      I would love to hear from the debunkers who never once have discussed salient facts like these in their posts. Challenge issued debunkers...

  47. Hi Scott, I've been trying to find out what "AVM" means-sorry if this question has been raised already.

    1. It depends on your point of view. A Catholic would say, "Ave Virgo Maria" as in the Virgin Mary. The Venus Families would say, "Ave Maria Magdalene." Others might say something else.

      That's the interesting thing about symbols; they mean different things to different people. It depends on their point of view. It all about context.

  48. Would Olof's grandson be willing to allow a new research dig on his property? Or possibly an extensive round of GPR or metal detection?

    New technology and effort might reveal further buried artifacts. Considering the importance of the site I think there should be new work done there.

  49. Robert,

    I would open to any new efforts to collect data on the farm as would Darwin Ohman. Unfortunately, the farm is now owned by Douglas County and it's a little more complicated to get things like that done now.

    But not impossible...

    1. Can it be purchased back from the County?

    2. I don't see that happening, but we are working on seeing the farm eventually becoming a National Historic Site. If ever there was a site that deserved that recognition; it's here!

  50. Scott,
    I absolutely love the show, thank you. Keep the seasons coming please !!!
    I want to pass along a couple of super important tips.

    #1 If you haven't already, you'll want to talk to Henry Lincoln, author of holy blood, holy grail. The book that inspired the Da Vinci Code. Also watch his documentary Origin's of the Davinci code. The secret is way bigger than you think, and, in my opinion, his research supports yours.

    #2 If you haven't already, you'll want to look at the Dighton Rock, in the riverbed of the Tauton River at Berkley Massachusetts. Petroglyphs appear to be phoenician.

    Thanks for the great work you're doing!

  51. Scott,
    I love the show, and all the evidence you have presented has been well researched and documented. I especially enjoy the discoveries regarding the templars and all the connections that are being found in this country. My interest was really peaked when visiting the church in Portugal one of the plaques had the date of Oct. 13th, 1895. That was the birth date of my father. He lived to be 92.

    Keep up this wonderful work of discovery.

    1. Carol,

      Glad the show triggered a memory of your father who I'm sure you miss very much. Thank you for the kind words of support.

  52. The Templar investigation warrants a program of its own. The complexity involved as the evidence eludes to historical rewrites is of unimaginable proportions. In a world of change, its interesting or even further, intriguing how todays society refuses to touch religion revisions based on scientific fact. If I were in the History Channels position...I would move forward full throttle, onboarding the best scientific/theological minds and create a documentary series based only on this subject matter. It is so complex and involved that it could only stand alone...To pursue the truth would be of great courage and bravery due to the sensitivity of the subject matter however the evidence is for the world to digest and decide. I very much enjoy the show as it provokes thought.

  53. I don't think my post worked but Scott, well done on a great finish to the season.
    I was watching the show and hit pause as the Portugal church was on. The blue banner showed nice arches that formed a nice M. The show could have been a 2 hr special. Could you say if the time that hooked x was pre or during Columbus's time?
    Looking forward to more findings. Come up to St. Cloud and give a talk sometime
    Erik of at cloud mn

    1. Erik,

      Your post worked, I'm just behind getting them on-line. My apologies.

      If you thin about it; the 8 columns with pointed arches between them inside the church, create "MM" on both sides.

  54. Anonymous,

    You took the words right out of my mouth; a show dedicated to this subject matter only is what I have wanted to do for a long time. It'll happen because it needs to happen...

    1. I concur. Your passion will take you there... I'll look forward to the journey...You are the key.

  55. Scott, it looks to me like the Mona Lisa is making the M sign. Have you noticed that?

    1. Francine,

      She is, although it's very subtle. Da Vinci was very clever with this one. I published this in my latest book, "Akhenaten to the Founding Fathers: Mysteries of the Hooked X."

  56. Scott,

    I absolutely love your show! It has aspired me to learn more about the templars and Jesus' bloodline. I have just a few questions. Have you thought about the possibility of Jesus could have kept his bloodline going and had a child with MM without sinning? What I'm trying to say is do you believe that Jesus' son could have been conceived by the holy spirit just as Jesus was? I am very much a believer that Jesus was not a sinner, so its hard for me to believe that Jesus could have sinned.This just a thought that I had and wanted to know your opinion on it. And have you done any research on the Shroud of Turin?


  57. Annie,

    I don't think there's any chance Jesus didn't "sin." Why is having sex a sin anyway? All humans do it, so why didn't he?

    I haven't done a lot on the Shroud, but likely will in the near future.

  58. And if any of us think that modern priests or cardinals, etc never sin (in any form), it would be ouright ignorant. We are human and so wasn't Jesus. We were created to be imperfect.

  59. The plethora of lawsuits just here in Minnesota involving sexual abuse by dozens of priests is testimony to that.

    1. Not just Minnesota....most every state.

  60. Greetings Scott;
    My wife and I love your show, you are professional and have a great manner about you. Please keep it up and congratulations on your success.
    There is a history that we have not been told that runs not just through America but for many thousands of years. Credible researchers (Graham Hancock etc.) many of whom I would bet you are aware of are trying to get this out. No doubt you are aware of the current efforts on Oak Island, there would appear to be some connection with your theories and what went on there.
    Please continue your efforts and remain true to the scientific method and your beliefs, many of us eagerly await your future discoveries.
    Best wishes.

    1. Steve,

      We will keep doing it as long as the network allows me to. Thanks for your support.

  61. Wow! I think you may have struck a nerve with your two part season finale, Scott!!!
    It took me hours to read all the comments on this blog. I am still flabbergasted by people that troll blogs and posts with subject matter they don't agree with just so they can repeatedly spout their disagreement.

    To anonymous just above: Jesus repeatedly taught about the sanctity of marriage. He even mentioned that a single life of abstinence created more temptation than most men could cope with and that it was not a life for everyone. He taught that marriage was Holy and Sacred. So why do people think that it would have been sinful for Jesus to have married? Marriage and having children was a huge part of the Jewish teachings. Therefore I would find it surprising if Jesus remained unmarried and celebrate his entire life.