Sunday, June 14, 2015

Dedication of the Westford Knight Shelter


Yesterday my wife, Janet, and I attended the ceremony for the dedication of the shelter for the Westford Knight carving in the bedrock in Westford, Massachusetts.  The ceremony was attended by well over 100 people that included a 6-man Westford Firefighters pipes and drums contingent fully dressed in Sinclair Clan colored kilts who marched in precession up the blocked off main street to the delight of the attendees.  Several people gave speeches including Steve St. Clair, representing the Sinclair Clan, and Richard Gunn representing the Gunn Clan.  Many believe the pecked-style carving of a medieval sword was made by a member of Prince Henry Sinclair’s party who was reportedly in what is now northeastern Massachusetts in 1398.  The theory goes the sword with peck marks across the blade on the glacially scratched slate bedrock represent a fallen Templar knight who was a member of the Gunn Clan who traveled with Prince Henry on the legendary voyage. 

The ceremony also included the unveiling of a life-sized bronze statue of a Templar Knight created by local fire fighter David Christiana.  His beautiful casting is depicted laying prone with his sword in front of his body as often seen on medieval grave slabs of Templar Knights I’ve seen in Europe.   Partially hidden beneath the blade of the sword in the fabric of the knight’s garment is roughly six-inch tall Hooked X™ symbol.  Christiana’s subtle Hooked X™ on the bronze statue is a clever analog to the actual, heavily weathered Hooked X™ symbol found in the summer of 2014 when the outcrop was being washed off.  The symbol includes two dots punched in the east and west sides of the symbol which is perfectly oriented to the upright sword as if the carver were signing his handiwork.  After examining the newly discovered carved symbol shortly after it was found last year I concluded the weathering was the same as the weathering of the sword carving and both carvings almost certainly were made at the same time.  Whether they were made six-hundred years ago and are related to Prince Henry is unknown, but until science can shed more light on the age of the carvings the current pre-Columbian theory is Templar’s in North America is as good as anything.

When it was my turn to speak I wanted to emphasize how important it was to preserve these carvings for the future when new scientific technology may be able to definitively answer the question of their age.  I commended the community of Westford for putting their time, effort and money to build the steel and plastic shelter to preserve and protect the carvings for future generations.  It serves as a shining example of what should be done to all sites across this continent that have mysterious sites, structures and carvings that could be tangible evidence of an unknown pre-contact history of cultures from across the oceans.  I told the audience that I will talk glowingly about the example set in Westford of a community that understands the importance of being committed to preserving vulnerable artifacts and sites and implore others to do the same.

North Kingstown in Rhode Island might be announcing their own ceremony about their plans to build a public shelter for the Narragansett Rune Stone.  It is hoped that other communities will support efforts to rescue the Noman’s Land Island Rune Stone from further sinking into the sea and create a permanent home where it can be protected and preserved for future study.  Other important sites like the Heavener Rune Stone in Oklahoma, need funding to redesign and build the current shelter built to allow proper air flow to mitigate the growth of mold on that has developed on those amazing carvings.   The Newport Tower is another site that has been taken care reasonably well over the years, but more archaeological work can be done there to gather additional evidence to better understand its origins.

In my opinion, yesterday’s ceremony in Westford was an historic day when like-minded people came together to honor and protect what is likely an important piece of the pre-Columbian history of this continent.    


The steel and plastic shelter designed to protect and preserve the Westford Knight and Hooked X carvings was dedicated on June 13, 2015.  A life-sized bronze statue of Templar Knight lays waiting to be unveiled to the right of the shelter.

Richard Gunn and Steve St. Clair dressed in kilts in the colors of their Scottish Clans stand next to the bronze casting of a Templar Knight created by David Christiana at right.

This life-sized bronze casting of a Templar Knight lying on a granite slab was made by David Christiana of Westford, Massachusetts.   David included a Hooked X symbol partially hidden beneath the blade of the sword (Inset).

 
Admittedly hard to see, the heavily weathered Hooked X™ symbol with two dots on the right and left sides went understandably unnoticed until June of 2014 when it was carefully cleaned.  This image on the left was highlighted with a cell phone flashlight from the right side.  The highlighted (in yellow) image on the right was taken of the plaster cast of the Westford Knight that was made in 1990’s and is on display in the Westford Museum only a few blocks from site.

            

127 comments:

  1. In the weathered pic of the hooked x, can you trace the outline of the x on micro paint? I cant see an x on the image although I m sure its cause its so zoomed in.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Amazing and well deserved tribute. Thanks for sharing Mr. Wolter.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Thank you Scott, for the above photos of Westford Knight site. I feel personally connected as Sir James Gunn, 7th Chief of the Gunn Clan 1360-1398, is my 16th GGrandfather. I like to believe that he is the Westford Knight. I also believe the sites need preservation, even if there is some debate on their origins. You are doing a great job in bringing the attention of the public to our history/myths/legends. Whatever they are, they enrich us. You make us Minnesotans proud!
    Mary Robinson - Sherburne County.

    ReplyDelete
  4. This is a milestone achievement and just the beginning. I am sure the future holds just as great and greater recognition of the explorers of this continent. This part of the world was well known and explored by many.

    Thanks to Scott, Steve and Alan and their spouses and their supporting staffs for such a historical moment. May there be many many more. Thank you.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Thank you to everyone involved with restoring and preserving this site. It was a spectacular day for the dedication! I thoroughly enjoyed talking with Scott, Steve St. Clair, among others. It was a happy day!

    ReplyDelete
  6. Is it true that there is a disclaimer posted near this artwork that asserts that the Westford Knight is a thing of legend, not fact? Also that more plausible theories claim it was originally carved by Native Americans? It was also likely underneath a few feet of earth in the mid fourteenth century, according to academics. Correct?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. At this state of the research, you should be well aware that unreferenced charges and statements are dismissed. We already know the excuses of the academics and they have yet to counter with they own original research into the matter.

      Delete
    2. I have read the sign...it does say legend and does say origins unknown...and other theories...but does note science by two forensic geologists indicate manmade carving of a sword and that science has determined the carvings are at least several hundred years old. It then talks of the legend. It is very informative and much more educational... backseat research from a computer I have found is usually full of holes and the same old stories are too. Nice to see real progress to finding the answers.

      Delete
    3. How beautiful the island of knowledge -- when the fogbank of misinformation and political agenda is removed ---- cheers

      Delete
  7. No disclaimer necessary and why would Native Americans carve a sword and a Hooked X? That doesn't pass the smell test let alone is it plausible. And would any academic say there would have been four feet of earth on the site 600 years ago? If academics outside of geology said that it's just another example of their misguided speculation designed to maintain a paradigm; pretty irresponsible don't you think? If anything, in a post-glacial environment there would have been MORE bedrock at that location exposed in the past, not less. Over time there has been organic-rich soil encroachment that is in the process of covering up the bedrock.

    You should know better than to listen to uninformed statements like that or are you just being silly?.

    ReplyDelete
  8. You say "no disclaimer necessary", but you don't address whether or not there is in fact one there. I also don't see the hooked X that you didn't even see until pointed out for your television show. The hooked X has no significant meaning anyhow other than that which you manufacture for it. Also the "sword" was punched into the rock well after the other faint markings of the stone were made. But you know that of course... or should.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. From where do you derive your all-knowing wisdom to make declarative statements when you 've never seen the carvings and likely spend little time away from your computer?

      You've brought nothing to this discussion but negativity and hubris. We've heard your opinion, run off now and try pooping on someone else's party.

      Delete
    2. No, now, mr. Wolter, please dont be too hard with your opinion to anonymous answer. Indeed he should have also picked his/her words also a little less hard, everyone has so his/ her opinion on an idea.

      Like anonymous I have also never seen the original carvings, living in the Netherlands and going to there to see it, sorry, cant afford the tri, and have also that bad thing like fear of flying, sorry, so have to do it with the pictures.
      And everyone could make his/her idea from it. When you ask why would Native Americans carve a sword and a Hooked X, some answer could be it was maybe not the intention of the N.A. to carve a Hooked X. With some fantasy I could also make a diving bird out of it. Maybe it was meaned that way?
      As an example, in your program with the Tucson Cross there was that figure with the dinosaur, as which you said it was a lizard. I would even go further to say it was a Gila Monster. Crusaders did already had made many contact with lizards on their travels, but I guess they never did meet something like a Gila Monster, with it's poisonous bite. When meet such one and bitten, it must have made a great impression for the medieval knight, even if it knows about poisonous snakes.

      While knowing some nesting birds can become also very aggresive to people when enter their nesting grounds, in my opinion a Native American could also have made some carving to warn others for something like that, ok, it's a wild idea, but who knows.
      Another funny thing happened when I saw the highlighted image, thinking about the simple image of an airplane, looking the way remembering to the Nazca lines.

      And then there's also another option when everyone has his/hers idea from plausible to the wildest one, forgetting the most natural one, Nature itself is sometimes the greatest artist. :-)

      Delete
  9. "Their misguided speculation"??? Well, if your show is ever canceled, you have a career waiting for you in comedy!

    ReplyDelete
  10. No geologist would say such a thing, so the academics who reportedly did are certainly misguided in their speculation.

    BTW, the reason the Hooked X is so difficult to see is because it's extensively weathered just like the sword that was made using a pecking technique. They both appear to be very old and academics should be curious instead of being close-minded and dismissive. Ring any bells?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Scott, He wasn't quoting a geologist. His trolling was taken almost directly from Wikipedia's article on the Westward Knight. David K. Debono Schafer (MA in Anthropology, University of Massachusetts, Amherst) Senior Collections Manager at the Peabody Museum at Harvard supposedly wrote an article making those statements. Wikipedia doesn't even give a link nor a year of publication for the situation to the supposed article by Mr Schafer. What his qualifications are to even speculate on the geology of the stone is questionable. I don't know the truth about the Westward Knight origins but I think I'll believe you on the subject of geology before I will believe the speculations of an anthropologist on geology any day much less an anonymous post to a Wikipedia article quoting him.

      Delete
    2. The senior editor of Wiki is an anti-diffusionist based in the UK. If you read the Wiki post about any of the controversial artifacts you'll see they are horribly bias against anything suggesting pre-Columbian European contact in North America.

      As an example, if you read about the Kensington Rune Stone, my research isn't even mentioned and I've done more work on the KRS than anyone in it's history except maybe Hjalmar Holand. I'm not trying to brag, it's simply a fact. The book I co-authored with Dick Nielsen. "The Kensington Rune Stone: Compelling New Evidence", isn't cited as part of the literature, yet scholar Alice Kehoe's book, that praised our research and our conclusion it was authentic is cited.

      Go figure...

      Delete
    3. You asked to be removed from Wikipedia, didn't you? And because you weren't a significant player in the world of either runes or geology, they obliged.

      Delete
    4. I did ask to be removed because the citations about my research were bogus, but then that's never bothered Wiki has it? They removed me because I threatened to sue them if they didn't.

      Now you have the facts straight.

      Delete
    5. If you don't trust Wikipedia anymore since the event involving your article on there, then why did you still use the site as one of your sources for your book "Akhenaten to the Founding Fathers"?

      James E.

      Delete
    6. James,

      Actually, I used Wiki 15 times out of the 162 citations in my book. The reason I used Wiki was it was before the incident when I asked that my bio be removed. The other reason is these citations were about relatively straightforward subjects they didn't have to put their "spin" on.

      You won't see one Wiki citation in my new book.

      Delete
  11. I think the Hooked x should have been left off the bronze statue. I support the Knight story but it's never been associated with a hooked x, they cast that beautiful bronze statue and then throw on a tainted x because such and such knows scott? It's not right to attach something that will actually only detract from the many real possibilities

    ReplyDelete
  12. Sorry, different subject. The London Hammer. Have you had an opportunity to examine the rock around this "time traveling" hammer?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not familiar with the London Hammer?

      Delete
  13. A "tainted X?" Those two words actually speak volumes about where you are apparently coming from. Care to elaborate?

    You're right that the Hooked X was never directly associated with the sword carving until it was discovered last summer, but in reality it was always there and was likely carved at the same time. Further, I had nothing to do with the decision about including it on the bronze statue. That was a decision David Christiana made by himself and I highly doubt he did it because he's met me. Maybe David will want to weigh in on that?

    In truth, the Hooked X on the Westford Knight site is perfectly appropriate as the symbol has only been found associated with Freemasonry and the Knights Templar. Your opinion notwithstanding; the historical importance and understanding of the site has been enhanced by the discovery of the Hooked X.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In truth, the hooked X rune has the hook to distinguish it from a Latin letter X for an A sound. That's all.

      Delete
    2. That is your speculation and it is simply not correct. In fairness, there is more very important information yet to come out about the Hooked X that make it's origin and ancient meaning self-evident. Further, why would a medieval person carve a simple "a" on the Westford memorial? Doesn't make a lot of sense. However, if it was a highly important and meaningful symbol emblematic of an ideological belief system, that makes an awful lot of sense don't you agree?

      Delete
    3. Speculation? Not only is it the firm opinion of the world's leading linguists, it's right there in the Larsson Papers. Do you honestly believe the Larsson papers are a forgery? If so, what do you base that on? Or perhaps a conspiracy of some sort? Well, conspiracies take two people. Can you even name one... short of a teenaged Larsson?

      Delete
    4. Anonymous,

      There is only one "World's leading linguist" in Old Swedish and that is Henrik Williams who I know very well. He is not certainly objective of when it comes to the Kensington Rune Stone and knows nothing about coded alphabets within the Cistercian and Masonic orders. Until he opens his mind and is willing to learn about them he has no chance of solving any of the inscriptions that include the Hooked X. You have been hoodwinked by placing your faith in this particular scholar.

      Ah, the Larsson papers.... You clearly have your logic confused. They are certainly not hoaxes; where you got that idea I don't know? Of course, Henrik Williams in 2004 used them as an escape from the debate with his colleagues to claim an immigrant could have used them to carve the KRS. Never mind there is no factual evidence to support his assertion, but that clearly doesn't matter to you or any other skeptic. Your and Henrik Williams' mantra is the KRS is fake no matter what.

      In fact, the Larsson Papers prove my point the Hooked X, along with the other "never before seen characters" existed all along. What Henrik knows, but refuses to acknowledge publically, is the second alphabet written in the "secret style" is indeed ancient dating back to at least the 15th Century. The proof is the Masonic "box" cipher at the bottom of both the Larsson Papers is also found in 15th Century Cistercian manuscripts in Germany. You can find these Masonic box ciphers on page 111 of my Hooked X book and on page 349 of Professor David King's 2001 book, "Ciphers of the Monks."

      It's not a conspiracy, it's fact and you'd better get used to it.

      Delete
  14. My work focuses on helping others as a Firefighter and as an artist. I try to honor those around me, preserve their memories and the important role they played in my town. I work with the WRMF to help do so. In Town, we try and preserve our history, we pride ourselves in the fact we take care of our monuments and our town. This site did not reflect that and has been deteriorating for decades. I was asked to see what can be done to preserve the site and revitalize it, to provide more information and give something more for visitors to see, visualize, but most importantly to save the carving. This is by far one of my most unique works. Deciding was difficult. I did some basic research forcing myself to read all sides of the issues. I found a lot of support from academia and against...many discussing opinions as fact, with out actual site examination and without backing up there "facts" with true reference points or proof. So I based my decision to do this project on what we do know...the carving is old, it is a sword, at some point people could see a knight, backed by actual on site examination of the carving by two very qualified Geologists and previous examinations by earlier archaeologists. Geologists, including former a Ma. State Geologist with over 20 years experience in geological field work investigations and in Archeology, backed by Scott's own investigations, that determined the Sword is indeed there, man made and several hundred years old. More importantly, this site has put Westford on the map...for decades...over 100 itself is now historic. I put forth my plan, the Town supported it. More info is provided, the carving is covered from the elements and a statue showcasing the site is there. The Statue: Thank you for the compliment about it being beautiful. Nothing was added to the statue after it was cast. What is there is what I sculpted. So is the Hooked X there or is that just blended wrinkles of his surcoat bunching up against his sword? Look, I was there when Shane (a Landscaper) discovered this Hooked X at the site. We were doing a thorough wash of the rock and the water soaked in and the surface was jet black. This thing stood out and was clearly visible from a standing position. It is in pictures from years ago, it is visible in the rubbing done in 1991. So it is there...and was there. The statue represents the Legend, it represents resilience, exploration, it represents that we think we know everything, but sometimes we just don't, it represents the opening of one's mind to exploring the possibilities and trying to find the truth of things we can't explain, through new science, real research... but it also represents that this could very well be an effigy of a medieval knight honoring his death. Look, I have met so many wonderful and interesting people on both sides of this issue because of this project. One thing I have learned...people like to tout there educational background a lot (on both sides). Just because you have a degree in Archaeology does not make you an Archaeologist no more than having a degree in Law Justice makes you a Lawyer. It is all about what you do with your education, how you use it to learn and teach others, life experience. Someone once said..."We are all teachers, but we are also all students." There are a lot of teachers...lets start opening our minds and be students as well. Stop the "lazy research syndrome" and get out there, visit these sites. Learn what from what you see, study what you need to know, test it and if find your results of your work say something different than what you expected...find out why...start over, confirm your results. That is how I learned to sculpt. I got off my butt, I sought out some of the best incredible sculptors, read a lot of books and taught myself. That needs to happen with this and other sites found that we may not be able to explain. So yes, very difficult to make the decision, but we did it for Westford, our visitors and to preserve our town History.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Very well stated David; I have nothing more to add.

      Delete
    2. This is someone who did his own research, took the time, came to a conclusion. It doesn't get better then that.

      Delete
    3. Mr. Wolter,

      I dont have a problem with you believing anything you want. My focus is only on the westford knight legend which a hooked x has never been apart of.

      David, your intentions are noble but you clearly took some artistic liberty in what detail you portray and what detail you enhanced. I cant even call that weathering an x, and I seriously dont know how anyone can look at that image and see a hooked x. If you wanted to depict that image then you should have shown it as the chicken stratch it is, or all the other weathering that is all over that block. Now instead of having a wonderful structure that honors the legend we have a place that will always be linked to a tv show and all the rigamoro that comes with it

      Delete
    4. Mr. Anonymous,

      Since you are obviously a Westford resident and apparently know David Christiana personally, why don't you have the courage to identify yourself?

      The Hooked X was never a part of the legend for obvious reasons. One would think since you already embrace the Templar legend associated with the sword that you would embrace the symbol that adds new credibility to that legend. The fact that you don't tells me you have some ideological objections to the Hooked X.

      I completely agree the Hooked X is difficult to see, but after careful examination of the advanced weathering and most importantly, it's correct orientation to the sword and the two dots on either side provide convincing evidence the "chicken scratch" indeed is a Hooked X. The emotional reaction to this newly discovered symbol betrays any objectivity you may have had and clearly has touched a nerve.

      Care to share your identity and what it is that's really bothering you?

      Delete
    5. Not only is the hooked x hard to see, but no form exists, nor is their form to the other pot marks and weathering that surround it. I see varying degrees of depth in the "x" and in the marks around it, and I would guess that the entire block would have numerous scratches and weathering if one zoomed in and highlighted it. But as I said earlier, I got no beef with you, I just happen to not subscribe to the hooked x on the westford knight. I don't have beef with david either, I just wish he hadn't used a great opportunity for the story to impart symbolism that is not present, nor was it present in the last 120 years. And not only is it attaching symbolism, but it's attaching one helluva a loaded goat of it if you subscribe to Wolters theories. I am not emotional about this, I speak my peace and move on. Thank You, JMB

      Delete
    6. It's pretty clear to me you have ideological differences with the meaning of the Hooked X and that is your choice. But trying to wish it away isn't going to make it happen or change reality. The Hooked X was obviously there 120 years ago, it's just that nobody understood what the Hooked X was until 2009 when I published it. You've stated your "beliefs" and offered opinions that don't match up to the geological evidence at the site.

      Let's both move on now.

      Delete
    7. The Westford Knight has been featured in multiple TV documentaries and has been featured in over 30 different books since the carvings first known write up in 1873. The site has had thousands if visitors over the years and will continue. To say its now tied to one show is careless as is saying the hooked x was not there 120 years ago considering you were not around then to confirm that. I represented what is there...what is funny is you chose to point out the X and nothing else. I took artistic liberty with the entire knight...I went by the drawings and had no choice but to. What I did not take liberty in was the broken blade and the hooked x...because these two things are there. I guess we have to agree to disagree...it is to bad you didn't feel you could just ask me in person...its easier than on a blog. I don't know a JMB. To say it ruined a statue is your opinion...but what's funny is you would have never even seen or known it was there if it was not pointed out here. Most others won't either. I will take your original compliment of the statue being beautifly done to heart. Thank you. Your argument lies with the carver of the hooked x and sword...not me. Good luck. Moving on.

      Delete
  15. My son who just turned 7 watches your show everyday. Most kids watch cartoons, mine loves history! His teacher is amazed by the things he comes to school and teaches his class. For the longest time he has told everyone he wants to be a "forensic geologist like Scott Wilder!" My son just may be your biggest/youngest fan. I was wondering, do you have any type of fan club that he could write to or submit for an autograph. I know it would mean the world to him.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Jessica,

    I'd be happy to send your son a signed photo. Just give me his name and your mailing address to my email and I'll shoot one off to him. swolter@amengtest.com

    ReplyDelete
  17. THANK YOU SO MUCH!

    ReplyDelete
  18. Incidentally, in a recent Westford newspaper article (http://westford.wickedlocal.com/article/20150618/NEWS/150615836#150615836/?Start=2&_suid=1434897266068029362093442392145) blogger Jason Covalito, was asked to weigh in on the Westford Knight. Why I don't know, but clearly he has his facts wrong and then offers a predictably negative opinion that adds nothing to the discussion. Quote, “Many different suggestions have been made over the years, including Native American, Viking, and Scottish carvers, as well as modern carving on a rock shaped largely by glacial forces,” Colavito said in an email, “The best evidence archaeology has is that the image is largely a figment of the imagination, glacial markings perceived as a knight and a sword handle, enhanced by punch marks in the shape of a sword blade that witnesses said were added by two boys in the late 1800s.”

    FACT, neither "archaeology" or Covalito has anything to offer regarding age in the case of the carvings in Westford; they are solely questions of geology. He then offers a statement that archaeology, "has it that the image is largely a figment of the imagination." Imagination? FACT: there is clearly a sword carved at the site as well as a symbol with two dots that appears to be a Hooked X.

    Finally, Jason cements his complete lack of understanding of the site which he clearly has never seen by making the false statement that "witnesses" said the blade of the sword was added by boy in the 1800's. FACT: the carver took advantage of deep, parallel glacial striations to serve as the blade, there were no peck marks to make the blade. FACT: the "boys in the 1800's" scratched out a pipe several inches above the handle of the sword. The good news about the "boys pipe" in the 1800's is it served as a weathering control and clearly the pipe is less advanced than the sword and the Hooked X.

    It would behoove Mr. Covalito to get his facts straight before criticizing something he knows nothing about. It undermines his credibility as a legitimate skeptic. If he were more diligent in his research and offered a balanced view he might actually serve as an asset. Statements like these show that isn't likely to happen and further muddies the already murky waters of our pre-Columbian history.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He has a "position" to defend. Any change in course and he will, for sure, be declared a "crank". I would like to think he was given air time in order to discredit the very story he is defending.

      Delete
  19. Just my own take on the activities of the last 15 years this has been going on. All it would have taken was just a few words and none of this trashing would have occurred. Very simple words when you think of it.......

    "In light of modern pier-reviewed research done on the "Kensington Stone", the work of Hjalmar Holland has been vindicated.......Further linguistic research has shown the discovery and verification of undocumented runes which have changed the narrative...."


    Just my take.....such time wasted...

    ReplyDelete
  20. Dave,

    I'm planning on posting a very frank discussion about the status of research with the Kensington Rune Stone. Simply put; it's a mess created intentionally by two specific individuals solely to wrestle control of the discussion with the intent of directing attention and credit their way.

    They have failed of course, but they did succeed in leaving a huge mess in their wake. It's one we can still clean up, but it going to come with some tough love.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Scott,

    It's a shame that you should have to bother with the mess, but I know that there are many that support you in this. Hang in there! :)

    I am looking forward to when the season starts up again. Your show is so interesting, I can't help but learn about things that I would have otherwise not known about.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Jennifer,

    I don't worry one bit about the trolls who try to insert their negativity whenever they can. All it does is inspire me more to get to the truth; and I think we're are getting very close.

    It's all good!

    ReplyDelete
  23. Hello Scott,

    I believe the people of Ball State University's IDIA Lab could prove the authenticity of the Newport Tower. Their work recently came to my attention. They've already proven the existence of several celestial alignments. Many of which, I've always suspected but, could never prove. Worth checking out.

    idialab.org

    Best regards,

    Anthony Warren

    ReplyDelete
  24. Hey Scott,

    I have a few questions I'd like to throw out that I don't think you've ever been asked.

    Do you believe the Templar knights/cisterians exist today in the same secretive faction? And if you do, does it worry you that exposing such a long held secret might be dangerous? Have you ever got a sense of that? And is Richard Sinclair apart of the Sinclair Clan? Love the show, congrats

    ReplyDelete
  25. No, the masonic Knights Templar nor the current Cistercian order operate anything at all like they did centuries ago. However, there are other groups guarding the bloodline secret such as the Priory of Sion.

    20 years ago it might have been more dangerous, but the time has come for the truth to be known. If anyone has been paying attention at all they'd know the world is coming to the realization the "Myth of Jesus" perpetrated by the Roman Catholic Church for 1700 years is dying on the vine.

    I don't know Richard Sinclair or if he is a member of the Sinclair Clan or not?

    Thanks!

    ReplyDelete
  26. I've noticed the History Channel is running repeats of your last season. I also note that repeats are often a precursor to a new season of shows. Dare I hope we shall be seeing more explorations and investigations in the near future?

    Jane B.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Public Educator,

      The answer to your question is yes! However, the new season of shows is not called "America Unearthed." It will be airing soon and once I get the green light to say something I will.

      I can tell you that it's going to be really good!

      Delete
  27. Public Educator,

    Do you teach any of Scott Wolters theory in your classroom? This brings up an interesting debate, one that I am perfectly willing to be neutral in. What do we allow to enter our classrooms and what criteria is used for selecting which materials should be allowed in? Do you have guidelines that is set in place for which you can or cannot choose material from?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous,
      It's a simple question with a not-so-simple answer! I don't so much teach Scott's (or anyone's) theories, as make my students aware of new theories about our history, and encourage my kids to investigate, research, and draw their own conclusions.

      The question of what should be allowed in the classroom is fairly straightforward for me. I feel that if my students are interested and engaged in a subject enough to raise questions, they should be encouraged to discuss, research, and learn more. I am happy to tell my students what I know about proposed theories, but I RARELY tell them what I believe. My stock reply to questions about what I believe is: "It really isn't important what I believe. What's important is that you delve into topics that interest you, discuss them, debate them, and then decide what YOU believe."

      My state Department of Education provides broad guidelines for instruction in a "Course of Study" document issued to teachers for their subjects. We are generally allowed to use any resource that furthers our ability to engage students in the topic, including textbooks (of course), trade books, video, websites, and so forth. The primary criteria for instructional materials is that it be developmentally (age) appropriate and directly relevant to the topic being studied. The essential element is that the teacher retain a neutral position in classroom discussions, neither dismissing nor promoting one point of view over another when diverse and often opposing viewpoints (especially when interpreting our history) exist. I believe my job, first and foremost, is to teach kids how to learn and think independently. Making students aware of as many points of view as possible is a critical element in this pursuit.

      Delete
    2. Public Educator,

      Very well and appropriately stated. I think Mr. Anonymous owes you an apology for derogatory comments I didn't post assuming you were something you clearly are not. I would hope your response will prompt supportive comments about the process of education you teach and not assumptions that you pursue an agenda.

      We need more educators like you to encourage open-minded thinking in the young minds of the future. The twisting history we are trying to sort out now is largely due to the arrogant, close-minded mentality we see too frequently on this blog.

      Delete
    3. The problem with entertaining Wolter's "theories" in a public school classroom is that it might tend to give them an air of credibility. Only if such "theories" were viewed as clear profiteering and fraud in our modern, televised world, would there be any sense in considering them. If a public educator attempted to introduce Wolter's "theories" as anything other than that, they should lose their job; and most deservedly so.

      Delete
    4. Anonymous,

      This is neither an intelligent nor a serious post and will be treated as such. Thanks for reminding us of how close-minded and threatened some people can be when their paradigm of thinking is challenged.

      If you took the time to look at the factual evidence behind the "television" you'd find plenty of substance, but then you'd have to be receptive to new ideas to be able to do that.

      For the record, I took a pay cut to do America Unearthed. That's just one of the assumptions you have wrong.

      Delete
    5. You sell fantasy as history as I see it, for profit. But I am a fan of your show. There's a marathon running this afternoon. What is most ironic is how you keep using the term "begs the question", as if it means to raise a question. Perhaps it does in today's modern corruption of the term of art. However, "Begging the Question" is actually an age old description for a fallacy; one that disguises their conclusions within their premise. You know, circular reasoning; which you should be well familiar with.

      Delete
    6. Anonymous,

      Please don't patronize me or the readers by calling yourself a fan. You are an internet stalker trying to assert your beliefs without any factual support. You've expressed your opinion now please move on. Or does the stalker in you insist on harassing us even more?

      Delete
    7. Scott,
      I see I am in your debt (again) for not posting presumably derogatory remarks aimed at me, and even before I'd had a chance to reply to Mr. Anonymous's questions! Thank you for that.

      Delete
    8. Anonymous,

      You stated, "The problem with entertaining Wolter's 'theories' in a public school classroom is that it might tend to give them an air of credibility."

      First, as I stated in my answer to your question-- I don't "teach" theories. I tell my students that multiple theories on the historic topic under discussion EXIST. I tell them what I know ABOUT those theories. I then encourage them to learn more about ALL the theories through research, and I let them discuss and debate the various points of view to help them clairfy their own thinking on the topic.
      Second, it is precisely because I recognize a teacher's ability to drive a narrow "agenda" that I try to always maintain the neutral position in the classroom, regardless of my personal beliefs.

      My students do not need anyone to tell them what a textbook says, they're all competent readers. They need someone to encourage them to THINK about the myriad ideas that may or may not be in a textbook.

      Delete
    9. This is why I am glad most responsible school districts provide a curriculum to go by..if this were not the case then guys like Wolter could infiltrate our public schools with unverified theories that people pick up from watching the entertainment he provides (which he does a solid job at that part). Scott, I think you need to be fully vetted, you need to release all documents related to your work. Thus far you know this is not the case which leads me to question why this is...talking about everything ...btw, is it possible to get some kind of sign in for the blog?

      Edwin

      Delete
    10. Where do you draw the line Jane? Will you introduce Holocaust denial theories to your students on equal footing so they can make up their own minds? If you entertain Wolter's theories in your classroom, will you also introduce them to the vast volume of debunking picking apart each and every twist and distortion he makes with history?

      By the way, there are more than one anonymous posters here. I choose to remain anonymous due some of Mr. Wolter's diehard followers of the white supremacist ilk.

      Delete
    11. Edwin,

      I'm really having a problem with the accusative tone towards me, my research and anyone who takes an interest in it. Vetted? What else is there you or anyone else needs to know about me; it's all been dissected ad nausea both here and on other blogs? I thought the questions we are supposed to be investigating were based on scientific facts, not personalities? The substandard work and ethics of so many scholars for over a century with the KRS demonstrates that academic background, while certainly beneficial, does not guarantee competence, open-mindedness or ethical practices. My former co-author and the Scandinavian professor who are repeatedly cited as opposing my research do so with bogus claims and bogus "research" are two prime examples. Sorry guys, but your 'vetting process' using these folks and others show how flawed and agenda-filled that process is.

      Release all documents? First, all of my scientific reports and related research is already published with citations and footnotes. Second, other supporting documents, samples, test reports, written peer reviews, notes, site visits, interviews, etc,. will be given to the proper institution in the near future. I am currently working with the Ohman Family and an institution right now in fact, to ensure security and proper succession of the documents, research and artifacts.

      Because of the actions of certain miss-guided individuals and often maniacal non-serious skeptics we are making sure access to these documents is controlled and allowed only for people who can demonstrate they have both the expertise (not necessarily an advanced academic degree), proper character and a history of employing proper ethics before they will be allowed access to the materials. Before crying foul, keep in mind these are the very things that I am bound to as a licensed professional geologist and something I take very seriously. I have not seen the same ethical behavior exhibited by many academics in this arena.

      The failure of the academic community and pollution of the discussion by professional skeptics has made these steps necessary to ensure sound scientific and ethical treatment of the research that has already created a profound shift in the historical narrative we once knew.

      You can, in part, thank the anonymous posters out there for creating the situation we are now dealing with. What I don't understand is if my research was so crazy, why do they waste your time watching my show and hovering over this blog like hungry jackals?

      Is it because I might be right?

      Delete
    12. I think I am going to institute a sign-in policy. "White supremacist ilk"; and you expect reasonable people to take comments like this seriously? Go crawl back in your hole until you're ready to put your name behind cowardly and sick comments like these.

      I will apologize to Jane for the ridiculous comments you just made since you don't have the decency or intelligence to police yourself; for the last time BTW.

      Delete
    13. Anonymous -

      You assume too much. Again, READ my response. I thought it was clear that I do not teach theories, I only acknowledge that they EXIST, share what I know ABOUT them, and encourage my students to learn more about those that spark their interest.

      As for your spurious remark about Holiocaust denial "theories," don't be absurd. We are fortunate to operate in close proximity to a large U.S. Army base and have in our community many WWII veterans who are happy to visit our classrooms and talk to our students about what they SAW, EXPERIENCED, and KNOW for fact. There is no "theory" that the holocaust did not happen! There IS, however, propoganda to that effect. There is a difference. And by the way, I also acknoledge that propoganda exits, and encourage my students to dig for information that will allow them to determine the veracity of all such material.

      Surely you're not equating Scott's assertions that some, perhaps many people visited/explored North America prior to Columbus is the same as an unapologetic antisemite disavowing the actual experiences of thousands upon thousands of soldiers, camp survivors, and even the testemony of the perpetrators themselves?

      It seems you are suggesting that teachers should dismiss all questions about anything that isn't in a textbook somewhere and tell those questing young people, "Just take what it says in this book for fact and forget about anything else." By that standard, whatever any government chooses to allow in a textbook is all a person needs to know to be considered educated. It is that sort of limited thinking that allowed otherwise decent Germans to blithely participate in the executions of millions, that allowed otherwise decent Japanese to perpetrate similar atrocities upon the Chinese, and that allowed 19 young islamists to kill over 3,000 innocent people in September, 2001.

      The purpose of education is NOT to dismiss questions for which we don't yet have complete answers, it is to encourage students to keep looking for the answers to their questions.

      Delete
    14. Your job is to teach out of the text book which is based on some fact and other probability, but vetted by academia...which may not be a perfect system, but it's the best system in the world when you consider that American Universities are the number 1 destination for graduate schooling at the next level. I would not allow my son/daughter in your classroom on the mere hint of a possibility that you would teach my kid anything wolter related....I am hoping and assuming you don't...

      Scott, are you releasing the documents or not? In one part you say that you have released everything then come back around and suggest that you will be releasing all documents "soon"...ok which is it? I hope it's soon and I think this is a best step in the right direction for you if you are indeed pursuing this.

      Delete
    15. Anonymous,

      I highly doubt Public Educator cares what you think and is relieved to know she would never have to deal with any child of yours.

      I don't understand why you care what I do since you clearly don't respect my work. Until you start to acknowledge documented facts this discussion is pointless. Your questions have been addressed now please move along.

      Delete
    16. Scott,

      I've come to the conclusion that our anonymous detractor lives in a little burg we shall, for lack of the actual name, call "Stepford!" ;-)

      Delete
    17. "Dear maniacal anonymous who has been frantically trying to post Henrik Williams’ pre-publication "draft" about the Mustang Mountain runic inscription,

      First, this paper has not conclusively proven anything except in the mind of Professor Williams. Further, I find it interesting that debunkers like you fail to give scientists like me even the slightest respect or benefit of the doubt, yet do not hold Williams to the same standard. Oh that's right; debunkers standard operating procedure is a double standard.

      Second, this 'prized scholar' has written yet another paper that is nothing more than "Wolter bashing" as was coined by a Runestone Museum board members who repeatedly dealt with Williams over a period of years after reading his recent papers. He just can't help himself can he, and what does this say about him?

      Third, I cannot legally post this paper because the apparently clueless Williams has implicated a person who has broken the law by desecrating a highly sacred Native American site by moving multiple tons of material and carving the inscription. While the individual who supposedly committed the crime is not named, a person who does know the person is named. It won't be difficult to locate the person if law enforcement choses to do so. That is, if the inscription is indeed modern.

      Fourth, in his haste to attack me and my show, Williams fails to acknowledge, again assuming he is correct, that my science correctly concluded the inscription did not exhibit any weathering which would be consistent with Williams findings. You will of course give me credit won’t you?

      Fifth, Mike Carr did not translate the inscription. I was told by the production company that a runologist was contacted who translated the inscription, but they refused tell me who the person was even after I asked. I thought it might have been Henrik.

      Sixth, due to the unfortunate personal relationship Professor Williams appears to have with me, his work regarding anything connected to me is suspect (for the record, I have no grudge against Williams and welcome the opportunity to get him involved in future shows should he decide to put his personal issues aside). One would like to think he is above this kind of personal pique, but sadly this is not the case and therefore his work cannot be trusted. Sorry Henrik; show me the evidence I can trust you and then we can move forward.

      Finally, if Williams is correct then I will be the first to congratulate him. In fact, to prove the inscription was indeed modern would answer a lot of questions for me and further demonstrate that my relative-age dating studies consistently work very well. Further, I accept responsibility for the conclusions reached on the program. If this episode reached the wrong conclusion then I apologize, but I’m not convinced by the circular investigation logic presented here by Williams. I will wait until an independent and unbiased third party reviews his work before accepting the conclusions, or is the professor above peer review?

      BTW; don't bother contacting Williams because I will copy this post and send it to him. Unlike you, I don't have to hide in the shadows and throw darts at people I have issues with."

      Delete
    18. Public Educator,
      I would be proud to have a teacher like you helping to teach my children to think for themselves instead of what the text books and government tell them to think! What a great teacher!
      BTW, the things that the text books taught me as "facts" when I was in school are not exactly the same teachings my children's text books are telling them are "facts"! So, text books DO alter the "facts" as time goes on. Only fascists and socialists demand that teachers only stick to the "facts" found in government accredited text books and government approved curriculums.
      I am glad to know there are still public schools out there that teach children to do the research and look at all sides and form their own beliefs and conclusions! It gives me a glimmer of hope!

      Delete
    19. I just can't let this one go...The comments against Scott are personal and have nothing to do with "education" and/or "logic". "Public Educator" has laid out some "conditions" for the level of responses she "requires" of her students...What a teacher. I could be wrong (or worst, missed it) but I would say her responses are on the level of 2-3rd year college level" instruction.

      I dare say the "noise makers" are the ones who have screwed up the "school boards" of this country.

      Delete
    20. Dave,

      I've only posted a fraction of the nasty-grams that are being generated by a one (possibly two) individual with a hefty axe to grind. The thread had become repetitive and overly negative so I ended it.

      I agree that Public Educator sets a fine example for the open-minded and thought provoking kind of teaching our young people we need more of.

      Delete
    21. I appreciate the votes of confidence from Invisable Jenn and Explorer Dave, and am gratified that, in my 20 years in the classroom, I've rarely encountered parents who prefer a narrow, shallow approach when it comes to their childrens' education. For the record, Dave, I teach middle school.

      Delete
  28. Scott,
    This story from Lake County Indiana might be something for you to look into. A possible 2000 year old mummy doesn't fit in with whole primitive native american narrative for the region. Indiana isn't exactly a dry climate nor is this a bog area that would tend to have a natural mummification of a body. Something is going on with this story. It could be an interesting investigation for you. Archaeologists were doing survey of the site to clear it to be used as a stone quarry.

    http://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/lake/ancient-burial-ground-mummy-found-in-lake-county-could-be/article_b0d49daf-769f-540f-9d8c-1b73a602bbdc.html

    ReplyDelete
  29. Scott,

    Of the Icelandic magical staves, I think you might be interested in Að fá stúlku. Of course we accept this as a designation of love from a woman to a man, but I think you'll immediately notice something interesting.

    (Though the oldest of the manuscripts the staves were found on date from the 17th century, there is of course reason to believe these stave formations were in use long before they were inked in the manuscripts.)

    -A friend

    ReplyDelete
  30. Just saw the part with the stolen stone and when seeing the symbol of the Hooked X it reminded me about another symbol, the German rune Gibur, which means present. It has many forms, basic as an X, also called the Andreas-cross. Then another form is looking alot like the Hooked X, only often with two hooks on one branch of the X and even on all four but then forming the sign of the swastika.

    I've readed the Gibur-rune also stands for the Grail, some coincidence?
    Further if you put the small branch of the Hooked X to the upper end of the X and take down a line from it down through the centre of the X you get the PAX-symbol, which is the sign of Jesus but as I readed it's also the sign of Odin.

    Maybe you have mentioned this already in one of your shows, not yet seen them all, had to download them, because H2 is not available here, sadly only History Channel alone with those boring garagebox and pawn star programs...

    ReplyDelete
  31. Hi Scott,

    I'm a big fan of yours and have been a defender of yours since your show began. However on a lot of forums where I have been defending you, various people have kept repeating that both you and your former colleague Richard Neilson were speakers at an event in 2002 called the "Third International Conference on Authentic History and the First Amendment." I didn't see what the big deal was, but I was horrified when they claimed that it was an event supported by Holocaust deniers and found it to be extremely slanderous. I just wanted you to verify the truth of the situation and put these allegations to rest.

    Mindy

    ReplyDelete
  32. Mindy,

    Dick Nielsen and were invited to speak twice on the same day in Washington D.C. The first was at a conference, but don't recall what the event was called and don't know if there were any Holocaust deniers there or not. I saw and heard nothing that led me to even think about that. I certainly would not have attended had I known that might have been the case. After our lectures where I spoke only about my geological work on the KRS, we then walked down the street to the Smithsonian Institution and gave a more in-depth presentation about my geological work on the KRS to a select group of scholars.

    The reality is the debunkers and deniers who are threatened by my research on the Kensington Rune Stone and other artifacts that support a radically different story about pre-Columbian history on this continent will stop at nothing to try and discredit me. They have already tried to attack my credentials and my character by calling me a racist, and now apparently, a supporter of Holocaust deniers. It's sad and its sick how these people will stop at nothing to try and attack anyone who threatens their distorted historical paradigm. They can't support their 'beliefs' with facts so they hide in the shadows and resort to personal attacks.

    I have nothing to hide about my reputation, my credentials, or my research. When all this peripheral nonsense goes away, I look forward to a serious discussion about the facts and let's see where the truth really lies.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Mindy,

    You said there were "a lot of forums" where this issue came up. Can you tell me which specific forums you are referring to? I don't consider the Covalito blog to be serious forum, so what are the other forums are you talking about?

    Don't you find it interesting that with "a lot" of forums apparently out there, not one of them has bothered to ask me directly about this allegation? I was taught that if you have a question about something, go to the source. I appreciate the fact that you came here and asked me the question directly.

    I wish my detractors had the courage and integrity to contact me directly before making accusations.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Scott,

    How come Frank Joseph in the following article says that you are "well known to long time readers of the Barnes Review"?

    http://barnesreview.org/pdf/TBR2010-no1-5-12.pdf

    -- Ed

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous,

      That's the first time I've seen that article and it's very good. I didn't see where Frank said that in the article? In any case, the answer to your question is the Barnes Review wrote an article about my research shortly after my geological report on the KRS was published in 2003.

      I'm surprised you are focusing on the questionable character of Frank Joseph, yet have nothing to say about the contents of the article that gives glowing praise to my research on the KRS, the Hooked X and other pre-Columbian artifacts. I smell yet another attempt to try and discredit me personally (and by association my research) by trying to connect me with people and organizations with questionable character and intentions.

      You wouldn't try to do that now would you "Ed?"

      Delete
    2. No, of course not Scott. I just want to know if you really are a disgusting opportunist that will use anyone, regardless of how disgusting their views and philosophy are, to promote your New Age pseudoscience, and pathological lies. So do you have any shame on allowing a disgusting publication like the Barnes Review to use your work for their ill intentions?

      Ed

      Delete
    3. Ed,

      Let's cut to the chase shall we? Your personal disdain for my research has nothing to do with Frank Joseph or the Barnes Review does it? I have no authority to tell them what they can publish and you know it. It's a free country or did you forget that?

      The truth is you feel threatened and are simply afraid that I might be right. I'll bet it has something to do with your religious beliefs because rage is dripping off your every word. How ironic that you accuse others of promoting hate.

      If I am wrong, then I suggest its time you moved on to another topic or another blog. If I am right, then it's time you also did the "mirror" thing and move along from this blog permanently.

      Delete
    4. That's a pretty quick judgement you made considering that I'm an atheist.

      -- Ed

      Delete
    5. Ed,

      As I said, either way, it's time for you to move along to another topic or another blog..

      Delete
  35. I didn't know about that article -- WOW -- he doesn't miss a beat nor does he miss an "artifact". Nice.

    And after just a couple of clicks, I got to your web page and there is 38 investigations of which only one is "hot linked".. its done on very nice letterhead from your company which of course leads to the next question. Does the general public (me) have access to all the investigations.....

    As usual the posters never read the books..just wiki...and, of course, they never focus on the in's & out's of the research...and I have St. Clair's book (Dick Phillips) on the purchase list...right along with Janet's and Alan's new book -- I also noticed that it is already "back ordered" at Inner Traditions.....your message is out there and there is no stopping it now...

    Its a crying shame the "learned academics" weren't on board with this. This is why they will "never" be called "scientists" or their works be labeled "science".....Scientists must change when new information becomes available or research is done...the "academics" never do...someday, though...sooner rather then later.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Starting with a conclusion and working backwards to only accept confirming evidence is far removed from the scientific method. Wolter's attack on academia is a red herring.

      Delete
    2. Anonymous,

      There you go again making things up as you go along. All I've done is point out the factual errors where some, not all, academics failed in their conclusions. Let me state for the record, I've reached out to people like Henrik Williams, to offer my assistance in helping with the relevant background information that would help in his research into the KRS and other artifacts.

      He has chosen to ignore those offers which tells me it is he who has reached a conclusion and is "working backwards."

      Remember my "look in the mirror" comment below before submitting your next post.

      Delete
  36. Scott, how do you answer your many critics when they say this blog is not fair and open, that you screen content here and refuse to have a truly open dialogue? Some appear to have screen shots of posts which didn't contain derogatory comments that you did not allow to be posted.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Anonymous,

    I answer my critics by simply stating this is my blog and try to use discretion regarding the content that is submitted. It's my responsibility as the facilitator to screen out inappropriate and intentionally derogatory comments that are misleading or unproductive.

    I would advise you and other debunkers to carefully read your comments before submitting them. If they venture into the areas of harassment or inappropriate commentary then don't submit it because you know I won't post it.

    If you and other debunkers feel you are being treated unfairly on this blog I would first ask you to take a long hard look in the mirror. If that doesn't help, then you are welcome to take the unproductive negativity somewhere else.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Scott, I am not a debunker. I have asked you 2-3 times to see the geological reviews done by the 8 academics that you once claimed reviewed your work. You have not made this data accessible to the general public nor to the academics, so why? The public is sophisticated enough to look at the reviews and if some arent then they can find someone that is. I am an archaeologist but my wife is a geologist...I would love her opinion

    ReplyDelete
  39. Anonymous,

    Tell you what I'll do, contact me via email and after I have confirmed that your wife is indeed a degreed geologist, I'll send a copy of the reviews for her to read. I only ask that she responds to the reviews in writing.

    That's fair don't you think?

    ReplyDelete
  40. She has a B.A. just like you Scott. How is it that you can read an archaeological report, make your own conclusions based off that report, yet when it comes to geology you seem hands off? What is it about geology that makes it so difficult for the laymen to understand verse archaeology. And what your email address and what proof do you want? Scanned in copy of the diploma? And you want her to write a review of the review...what will that accomplish exactly?

    ReplyDelete
  41. Anonymous,

    I didn't think you were serious since to follow through would reveal your identify and I don't believe you have the courage to step out of the shadows, by the way my email is swolter@amengtest.com.

    What will a written review accomplish? It will show me whether or not your wife understands what she reads; it's the least she could do isn't it to show this is a serious request.

    Because of the dishonesty of the debunkers and the lack of integrity of some scholars in this subject matter I am not going to screw around with anymore nonsense regarding my research. Further, a certain debunker blogger's phone calls to the University and deliberately misleading blog posts put my retired and elderly professors (one recently deceased) in an awkward and uncomfortable position and it pissed me off royally. I won't allow anymore of that kind of harassment.

    That's my offer, take or leave it.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Scott, I am not trying to upset you my friend but people won't be snooping if you release all the documents. I feel like someone in your inner circle should advise you how to properly navigate the publishing world, as it stands now, you are in the crosshairs of debunkers because people suspect you have something to hide. Just release all the reviews and this would alleviate your concerns imho.

    The way you are doing it now is basically applying a double standard. You claim that other fields are a closed circuit, yet here you are asking for my credentials before I (or my wife) can review your work. I hope for your health and peace of mind that you will take my advice. I'll see if I can't get the documents scanned in this week and I am looking forward to the reports...thanks buddy

    ReplyDelete
  43. Anonymous,

    Let's be clear about one thing; I could care less what debunkers say about me, it's the harassment of others that I will not tolerate. Under normal circumstances I share everything about my research and am happy to do it.

    The KRS is anything but a normal situation. I'll give you an example; this is a statement direct from the mouth of the current State Archaeologist of Minnesota that he recently told attendees at a lecture to the Minnesota Geological Society when asked about the KRS. He reportedly said, "I don't know anything about geology and I don't know anything about Scandinavian runes, but the KRS is hoax."

    This is one of your guys and I've heard similar comments from archaeologists. Here's the irony in this whole thing; there is no archaeological aspect to the Kensington Rune Stone research, yet far too many of them feel compelled to offer an opinion. It isn't appropriate and is quite frankly irresponsible. I have a huge problem with that and would file a complaint if I could. Unfortunately, the State Archaeologist is a politically appointed position so there's nothing that can be done.

    This is just one example of many over the past 15 years of why I don't trust certain academics in this arena. I'm sorry pal, but that's the way it is and I hope you can understand that.

    ReplyDelete
  44. I feel your angst on a number of fronts and I would agree that if someone is phoning up you're elderly professors then they have crossed a line, unless your elderly professors have given an opinion on the KRS and other works in the last few years. However, I think you aren't being consistent when it comes to releasing the review documents. If you have released the reviews to various entities in the past then their's noway to pull that back in. So I am working off the assumption that the reviews have never been made public? But that doesn't make much sense because if you are willing to truly send me the reviews then you surely sent them before. So rationalize this, if you've sent out the reviews previously then someone will eventually get their hands on them...they way you are doing it now just asks for it.

    Just be consistent man, if you are consistent then you don't have to deal with insinuation about your methods or practices...that's my best advice, I am excited to get to see the reviews..ttyl

    ReplyDelete
  45. Anonymous,

    For the record; I have never shared the reviews with anyone before. Only once did I pull out the folder and show a documentary filmmaker the reviews, on camera, to prove they did exist. A Swedish academic made the claim I was lying and said the reviews didn't exist.

    I'm still waiting for an apology.

    ReplyDelete
  46. This is a different anonymous, the reviewers were made public in an email exchange you had. Why don't debunkers just go ask each individual reviewer for a copy?

    ReplyDelete
  47. Tooooo often, the "so called" reviews are nothing more then "embellished" and/or "empowered" professionals outside of their "business". Just look at "historians". These guys/gals offer up incredible opinions and facts over everything (from ancient iron furnaces to studies of ice cores). Scott is very justified to release his work only to those who pass the test. If you are an archaeologist with NO experience or education in geology, your out of your league. The same is true of Scott. He uses "licensed" archaeologists where it is necessary.

    I have a question for "Anonymous". How do you "license" a historian or an internet "troll". You don't, so they have no legal right to anything. If you can't sue their license or their insurance carrier for their being wrong, then you have no business being there. We and you should be done with this "uneducated" crowd. If you are serious about these comments, then, as a professional, you would have provided already your licenses and education requirements. The second point is, if you were a professional interested in this information, you would not have taken this request public. That is a NO-NO.

    Me, on the other hand, is just plain old john Q public who is very interested. AND I bought his books. There is your source for everything he has done on the "stone".

    ReplyDelete
  48. Did America Unearthed get renewed for another season?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous,

      I will have an announcement very soon about a new show I'll be in on History Channel that is tentatively scheduled to air in late August. As soon as I know, you'll know!

      Delete
    2. So is it a one time presentation on a given subject or a series? Are you the host or a guest?

      Delete
    3. I am the co-host of a new series.

      Delete
    4. Who is going to be the other co-host?

      Delete
    5. Mindy,

      I'm waiting for the network to give me the go-ahead to start promoting the new series. I can't say anything yet until they tell me it's OK. Seems silly since it's supposed to air in about 3 weeks?

      I'll let you know as soon as I can.

      Delete
  49. Anybody can sue anybody today, that's not a standard. But if you insist on using this legality bs then sure, an archaeologist could be sued in cultural resource management for not doing a proper job or failing to identify an important cultural resource. But what does that prove?

    If Scott's reviews of his work are so unimportant then what's he afraid of? Why did he go through the trouble of getting 8 academics to review his work if he thinks so little of his academic profession (geology). Scott dabbles in linguistics, history, archaeology, geology, and I am unaware of any "professionals" that he can point to currently. The ones that he has sought opinion from have apparently given an opinion to which he hasn't released...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. so, have you read his books --- ??

      Delete
    2. Anonymous,

      The reviews are nothing earth shattering at all. They are simple questions about mineralogy and weathering rates to which I provided satisfactory answers. They are very short and succinct exchanges.

      I have stated numerous times who I will share the reviews with and why I have feel the need to do so in the manner I've chosen. I don't have time to waste with people who aren't serious researchers and do not licensure or some form of accountability for their commentary.

      Spoiler alert: none of the reviewers had comments that were in any way at odds with my conclusions.

      Delete
    3. Scott, I've witnessed you in this very discussion take bits of dicta from others that might not contradict you and transform it into approval for all your claims. So how can you be trusted that your reviewers were not at odds with you? Besides, only proper peer review of your geological dating methodology would be a proper standard for acceptance within the field of geology. In response to such concerns, you bad mouth peer review in general, as some sort of vague academic conspiracy. These are the facts. These are the truths. And please, no name calling in response. I am not a troll. I am not a debunker. I am only stating the obvious and cannot for the life of me figure out why you refuse to see what is before your very eyes. Your credibility is on the line here and it's not going well for you.

      Delete
    4. Anonymous,

      You are absolutely right that my credibility is on the line and that's exactly why I respond the way I do. You're an on-line ghost sitting in judgment of me personally and my work with no accountability for your comments whatsoever. Until you demonstrate why I should take you seriously; I don't.

      I don't appreciate being questioned about my ethical behavior and scientific methodology when I've been a licensed professional geologist since the Minnesota licensing bill was passed in 1996. I was one of several geologists who testified in front of the legislature to get this bill passed to ensure competent and ethical practices in our discipline. I have operated a materials forensic laboratory for over 30 years and understand a little something about the scientific method. Unlike you and other debunkers (sorry pal, until you can provide evidence that you aren't a debunker you are), and the scholars who criticize and question my work, there is no accountability they have to worry about. There is no code of ethics they took an oath to abide by and most importantly, there are no serious repercussions for incompetent or unethical practices that I have witnessed many times.

      What I say in this blog about other researchers isn't name-calling, they are simply the facts. That you and other debunkers chose to ignore these facts and simply press your own points isn't a strategy that will work with me. Until you demonstrate a higher level of professionalism and balance in your commentary I can't take you as seriously as you'd like.

      Delete
  50. Scott, with that kind of an argument, why should you be allowed to read archaeological reports or visit archaeological sites? If you had it your way, only certain individuals you deem appropriate can view your data. Yet you've demanded access to numerous archaeological sites on multiple tv episodes and you admittedly don't possess degrees in linguistics, archaeology, or history. It's warped logic. You don't have to have time to waste with "people who aren't serious" if the data is available to any and all takers.

    Explorer Dave, I answered the questions you posed to me in the last post. You offered no counter and simply referred me to a book. That is not how an exchange is conducted.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Your logic is warped. As if only "qualified" people should have access to archaeological and cultural records. Scott and every other citizen of this country paid to have that data collected and recorded. It does not matter if you agree w/ Scott's analysis. He can say whatever he wants. I notice he is doing the saying while you sit back and criticize anonymously. Link to your body of work please. It likely involves whether the flintknapper was left or right handed or some really hard hitting archaeology like that. World changing information about arrowheads we have thousands of examples of already. Perhaps you could enlighten us with your regional pottery tempering analysis or other world changing information like that LOL. Archaeology consistently neglects to apply data on a broad scale and they are taught not to. At least Scott is thinking well outside the box you are trapped in.

      Delete
    2. Here's my cultural analysis of Scott's anonymous critic. He is a archaeologist with a master's degree that can't get a job anywhere except as a dig bum. His overly verbose ramblings and use of words like "dicta" belay his over bloated sense of self worth and disappointment that he chose a career he can't make any money doing. He then massages his huge ego by taking pot shots at someone who isn't trapped in the same paradigm he's been brainwashed with. The rest of the crew he works with hates him. LOL. When I criticize Scott he knows who I am and I do it with my name attached. You are a coward sir. Please share with us your qualifications beyond knowing how to use a remote control for your TV that qualifies you to criticize anyone. You are a sick manifestation of the internet age Mr. "Anonymous." "Sociopath" is more like it. Can't wait for your overly verbose reply.

      Delete
    3. We'll be waiting a very long time before he tells us who he really is; especially since you likely nailed the details about his situation. Having said that, I welcome questions and criticism, but when given factual answers and responses they need to be acknowledged. Mr. Anonymous has not demonstrated that ability nor displayed any objectivity or courtesy.

      Despite what some people might think, I don't believe common courtesy or respectful discourse has gone out of style yet.

      Delete
  51. Anonymous,

    It's not warped logic at all. All I'm doing is ensuring they are qualified. As far as my reviewing other reports in different disciplines, I make sure to check with archaeologists or linguists I trust to make sure I'm interpreting the data correctly and responsibly.

    Keep in mind that as a licensed professional I'm obligated to ensure I follow appropriate protocol and ethical standards. That is what I always try to do.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The only true professions are law, medicine and clergy. Your license simply allows you to hold yourself out as a geologist. You have no post graduate degree and no work that is peer reviewed that would qualify you to intrude upon other established academic fields. You sell fantastic claims for profit. And yeah, don't be surprised should someone make a formal complaint to your state licensing board for your conduct in this regard. You asked for it.

      Delete
    2. Anonymous,

      Nice; when left with no facts to refute me you resort to threats. This has already been tried by a certain academic a few years back BTW, but you go for it tough guy.

      Now that you have a plan to try and make yourself feel better, we are done wasting people's time with this boring thread. Please don't come back until you have something productive to offer to the discussion.

      Delete
    3. Mr. Anonymous obviously has not worked in various scientific fields where projects got specialists to do things sometimes beyond their formal training. Geologists do have basic knowledge of chemistry and crystallography and structures, which obviously Mr. Anonymous does not have and can't comprehend.

      Delete
    4. Very astute Catherine. Scott has much to offer in rewriting our nation's true history.

      Nam E'tisoppo

      Delete
  52. Catherine,

    Mr. Anonymous doesn't really care about the truth or understanding the points we try to explain. He is simply posting harassment for his own entertainment. That is why I no longer post anymore of his overly negative and offensive rants.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Scott,
    Do you have any lectures coming up soon in Minnesota?

    ReplyDelete
  54. Anonymous,

    I don't have anything coming up in Minnesota until next year, but I do have lectures coming in Iowa, Florida, and Ohio in the last quarter of the year. Check out my www.hookedx.com in the couple of weeks for info if you're interested to know more.

    ReplyDelete
  55. Off the topic, but I believe Rick and Marty will find that oak Island is an old mine site built when sea levels were lower.




    ReplyDelete
  56. No they won't; no one would build a "mine" in glacial deposits for anything. Placer deposit mining maybe, but a mine? No.

    ReplyDelete
  57. Thank you Mr. Wolter for taking seriously the Westford Knight. My home town of Westford has, for decades, denied the possibility that this rock was carved by any Europeans prior to Columbus. After so many years I feel vindicated and proud that this piece of history is honored and protected.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. L. Davan,

      People have a natural skepticism that, while is important in making sure things are true and legitimate, sometimes gets in the way of clear, objective thinking and causes people to make mistakes.

      While I don't believe we have definitively proven the Westford Sword and the Hooked X are connected to medieval Templar's, in my view, the evidence we have points only in that direction.

      Let's see what else may come forward that sheds additional light. In the of the carvings and strong likelihood they are connected to the people who, unquestionably, began the true founding of the United States.

      Delete