 |
Scott and Mr. Dong at the incredible Great Wall.
|
 |
Scott poses for a photo with family who came to watch the California Walls shoot. (R to L) Scott's sister Danna Kiefer, brother-in-law, Kevin Kiefer, niece, Katie Kiefer, and childhood friend Ken Amundsen
|
 |
Rear Admiral Zheng Ming poses with Scott in front of a bronze statue of Admiral Zheng Hu.
|
 |
Our Chinese interpreter, Crystal, waits inside the stone and fired brick bastion along the "wild" portion of the Great Wall in China.
|
 |
Rear Admiral Zheng Ming holds court with interpreter Crystal and the Committee Films crew.
|
The opportunity to travel to China was amazing and it was everything I hoped it would be and more. Aside from the long flights, the trip was worth it just see the Great Wall which included special access the "wild" portion overgrown with vegetation and not maintained. Walking along the wall in both areas we visited was one of those surreal moments trying to take it all in. The wall is so big and imposing it's hard to imagine how it was constructed to snake though the highest and most rugged parts of the mountain peaks. It is simply amazing.
Both of my guests in China were wonderful; especially Rear Admiral Zheng Ming. He is 82 years old and a hero to the Chinese who was so knowledgeable, kind, and humble. He was so happy to have us there to talk about Chinese exploration and was genuinely thrilled to have Americans' learn about their history. The morning we left to fly home, the admiral got up at 4:00 a.m. and was waiting to meet us in the hotel lobby to see us off. We were all genuinely touched by this man whom the Chinese have every right to be very proud of. The Chinese are also very proud of their historical hero, Admiral Zheng Hu. I am embarrassed to say I had not heard of him prior to filming this episode. His accomplishments on his seven voyages are staggering and the lack of knowledge in the United States about this amazing explorer says a lot about how Eurocentric our education system is. It's understandable to a point, but this is one man we should be learning about in history class.
I was also unaware of were the mysterious stone walls in California prior to filming that were brought to my attention through the tip line. Since there is no known historical record of the origin of the walls, and it appears the surviving local native tribes have no intact oral stories about who made them, they truly are a mystery. To me, the two most plausible explanations are local natives built them, but have lost the knowledge of the ancestors work. The could also have been built to mark territory by a visiting culture most likely from the Far East. Having been built primarily at the top of the mountains, it seems unlikely they were constructed to keep in livestock or to keep out advancing enemies. Because of their tradition of building walls just like these along with the more massive sections of the Great Wall, the Chinese are a legitimate possibility to have created them.
More important than the origin of the California stone walls was the incredible map evidence both Dr. Gunnar Thompson and Dr. Lee shared with me. The detail displayed in the geography of North, South, and Central America could only have been obtained through detailed mapping by cartographers from numerous pre-Columbian voyages to these continents. The skeptics are going to mash their teeth and their keyboards trying to explain away the Chinese component of the early history of the America's. I'll bet many Native American tribes have knowledge preserved somewhere about the highly advanced navigators from the Far East who almost certainly visited BOTH sides of our continent.
What an incredible episode! It truly is sad that even today our education system is still so Eurocentric. I believe that should change given the fact that modern America is the melting pot of the world.
ReplyDeleteThe wall outside San Francisco is very intriguing. I was wondering if you could explain further about the weathering rind on the rock sample shown in the beginning of this episode. Is it possible to tell if the weathering rind developed before the stones were placed in the wall? Is it something that can be used to make a fairly accurate age assessment of the wall? The rocks in the wall didn't appear to have been quarried.
Thank you for once again piquing my curiosity! And thank you for indulging your fans with this wonderful blog!
Jenn,
ReplyDeleteAlready I'm being criticized for "destroying" the rock wall. Funny, nobody knew anything about it until it was featured on our show. Suddenly, the skeptics are up in arms over something we brought to attention. Actually, I'm quite pleased they even care about it as I certainly do.
For me to begin to get a general sense about how old this thing is from a geological sense it was important for me to obtain a sample. First, you have to identify the rock type by looking at a freshly broken surface. Breaking off a sample as I did is the only way. Second, I wanted to get a sense of the weathering of the exposed surfaces of all sides of the stacked stones. I looked for differences in the weathering rind or "crust" that was relatively uniform and very well developed. This meant the rock I tested, and presumably the other stones in the wall had been in that stacked position exposed to the elements for a very long time. Likely many centuries.
A lot more work needs to be done up there geologically to better understand the age of the wall. Much to the faux consternation of the disingenuous skeptics, a lot more invasive testing will need to be done.
Hats off to one of the best you have done. History 2 owes you a 2 hour special on Sunday nights for that one.
ReplyDeleteThe maps, the rocks, the Chinese interviews. This one has a lot of mileage. Of course, the map and the Jesuit priest (Ricco), Marco Polo. This history of Marco Polo is just getting started. May you and History Two be able somehow get interviews with Gavin Menzies and Charlotte Harris Rees.
Your interview with Gunnar Thompson was about 60 minutes tooooo short.
This show had so much information on it. Thank you.
Here are some more websites for people who are interested in more research and finding the truth about our continent.
http://www.migration-diffusion.info/article.php?year=2014
http://midwesternepigraphic.org/index.html
Taking a chunk of the rock wall -- that's choice and hilarious. At least, on the plus side, the deniers haven't charged you with faking the wall using the fake building material we use here. This tells me they acknowledge the wall but are too weak to do (as usual), their own research. All they have to do is get in their car and drive......
ReplyDeleteAnd I live about 20 miles from that wall. I will be taking some time to go see that one. Mt. Diablo is just outside to the west. I see it everyday. They say the Native Americans made it but at the same time the "paradigm" says the ancients never built anything permanent.
my my
Thanks Dave; this was my favorite episode so far. We packed a lot into this on and the maps were the clincher for me. The skeptics are going to dig pretty deep into their bag of BS to come up valid criticism this time.
ReplyDeleteI'm sure they'll think of something, but why don't they have the nerve to come over here and play?
Just saw the episode. Informative and entertaining. I noticed in the show, when you took the rock sample, that you had permission to do so. It's hard to understand how the alleged skeptics react to such things. It's easy to complain from a chair. The California wall reminded me of the "Great Wall" of Peru and as far as I know it was first "discovered" in 1931 by an aerial expedition. The wall extends about 50 miles inland from Puente. It averages 7 feet in height and has much larger circular and rectangular forts erected at intervals. Of course, there are other similar walls in Bolivia. In New York (Ramapo) near NYC, there is (or was) a complex wall formation with the height 1-4 feet A lot of rock cairns were also there, most of which were 8-feet high. We recently explored the Mt. Carbon wall-site in West Virginia with a government official and prior permission granted by the leaseholder of the mountain. A 10-mile wall was once thought to be there, but a lot of it has been destroyed by mining. The wall was never 10-miles long, but it was huge. One cairn—as far as we know—still remains there. It appears to be the one that was being excavated by Col. P. Norris for the Smithsonian in the 1800s, Norris died of a heart attack while excavating.
ReplyDeleteHi Greg,
ReplyDeleteThere are numerous stone walls across North America of various sizes and lengths that appear to predate colonial settlement. Just today, a friend on Twitter sent me photos of a very large and extensive wall in the remote forests of Pennsylvania. There are some potentially very helpful new dating methods that could shed light on the age through measuring the alteration of certain minerals from ultra-violet light exposure in specific rock types.
These methods shows great promise, I just hope the skeptics allow us to do so...
I grew up in Pennsylvania's mountains. While in Boy Scouts we did hikes, including a 50-mile one. I recall seeing a lot of walls and stone chambers. When the scout leaders were asked about them the chambers were called root cellars. The walls, many in the densely covered mountains, were said to have been made by farmers clearing fields. It seemed a stupid answer then. As it does now.
DeleteWhy stupid?
DeleteWhy is that a stupid answer? It seems to make sense.
DeleteDoes the weathering rind develop on rocks that are left on the ground or in soil? How exactly does it prove the rocks have been in the wall for centuries. Could the Spanish or Mexicans have built the wall? I want to understand. So much info in such a short span of time!
ReplyDeleteThe maps were very intriguing! What a shame that much of written history has been lost over the centuries.
Having a close friend that briefly had a show on a major network a few years ago, I understand the amount of hate mail you must get with each new episode. But that's okay! You're still getting a vast amount of people to rethink the history around them! I know I'm skeptical about a lot of your conclusions, but you have me absolutely hooked on your show! Sadly, hate will often outnumber the praises when you're in the spotlight. I will give you the same advice I gave my dear friend, "Keep focused on what you believe in and let the hate roll off you. Never let the hatred others spew bring you down because their hate is never actually personal. If it isn't being directed at you then they are directing it at someone else."
ReplyDeleteDon't ever be discouraged by your skeptics! You have chosen a noble cause to correct history as it's been taught. Those that have taken up that cause in the past were also ridiculed, but most of them persevered in rewriting history! H2 definitely made a great move by backing your quest and airing your show! I can't wait to see what each new episode has to teach us! And since I found your blog I look forward to each new posting here. I should have just summed up my long post to you by just once again saying, "Thank you! Keep up the good work! I look forward to many more seasons!"
Hi Scott,
ReplyDeleteI presume you mean me when you say "The skeptics are going to dig pretty deep into their bag of BS to come up valid criticism this time." But since you invited the skeptics to come "play," let me take you up on your challenge.
You have now cited the map evidence as convincing and all but conclusive. However, your show did not acknowledge that none of the maps you showed had been drawn prior to 1492. One Chinese map was clearly labeled "c. 16--" (I couldn't read the last two digits) on the poster reproduction. Please explain the evidence that confirms that this map is 200 years older than its stated date.
The Ortellius map you showed was printed in 1570, and it clearly labels North America as "America" and with the then-current Spanish geographical terms for North America (California, the Red Sea [i.e. the Gulf of California], etc.) while the rest of the map is in Latin. Given that it was printed in 1570 and uses Spanish terminology and states that it was from Spanish material, what evidence do you have that Ortellius used Chinese sources?
The 1602 Kunyu Wanguo map that closes your show states in the actual text on the map that its sections on the Americas were based on European material and that the Europeans were the first to reach the Americas. Why would the Chinese lie about this 100 years after Columbus and deny their own "discovery" of America?
I look forward to your response.
Hello Jason,
ReplyDeleteThe answer to your question is quite simple. As you have already stated and is well known in cartography, all of these maps are based on earlier maps which are based on people prior to that performing the surveys to make them. When you look at these maps carefully, the level of detail and accuracy is incredible. The land masses of North and South America are very large to say the least. To achieve the level of detail present would require at least a couple hundred years of exploration if not several hundreds years of building upon previous mapping expeditions. Keep in mind that in the case of the Chinese, they had to travel thousands of miles across difficult waters to get to where they would begin these mapping expeditions in the first place.
Having performed a lot of geological mapping in my earlier days, it is my opinion these maps clearly indicate the presence of both European and Chinese explorers to the shores of the American continents, and if you'll allow me be so trite, "long before Columbus."
Thanks for taking the time to come over here; I really do appreciate it.
I appreciate your response, Scott, but with all due respect, you haven't answered the question. There is nothing in the maps that suggests they were made from pre-Columbian originals. You can't just assert that they are. What specifically proves that these maps were based on Chinese rather than European mapping? The maps themselves claim to be of European origin, and I don't see that you've provided any evidence that we should reject a plain reading of the maps. So, let me ask this again: Why should we accept your assertion over the actual text of the maps?
DeleteOn the contrary, I have answered your question. You have simply chosen to not accept it, and I most certainly can make all the assertions I want based upon my knowledge and experience with the subject matter along with using simple logic.
ReplyDeleteI believe these maps were largely based on information derived from both earlier European and Chinese sources. I do agree that at this point it is hard to conclusively prove. However, as I stated earlier, the level of detail and accuracy exhibited in the maps indicates a long, and likely very intriguing history in their creation that no doubt goes back hundreds of years if not longer.
Let's face it Jason, there is no evidence that we know of at this time (although I'm sure it does exist, most likely in the Vatican that will show up in due course) that definitively proves any of this. However, there is also no evidence to prove my assertions are wrong. I'll bet most people would agree that logic and common sense support the ancient origin of these maps that could only exist because of the fact that many cultures extensively explored and mapped these lands in the distant past.
You and I might have to respectfully agree to disagree on this point.
I do not doubt your ability to make assertions, Scott, only that these assertions need facts to support them. I have knowledge and experience, too, and if I assert that the maps betray no mysterious Chinese knowledge, then we are at an impasse. Judging claims entirely by opinion doesn't get anyone closer to the truth.
DeleteLogic would tell us that the maps were created by the people who signed their names to them, and wrote on them about how and why they were made. Ortellius, for example, indicated that his source was Spanish. The Kunyo Wanguo map clearly states it is of European origin. If you want to assert otherwise, the burden is on you to provide reasons why we should assume the mapmakers were liars.
As you can see, the question isn't about your assertions but about the facts on which they are based. Have you read the text on the maps? We will indeed have to agree to disagree on whether to trust your assertions above those of the mapmakers themselves.
Jason,
DeleteI don't recall referring to any of the mapmakers as liars? I also think you have to acknowledge the reality that it took centuries of voyages and surveys to create the source material the mapmakers used to make them. This is an undeniable fact which serves a the basis for my claim.
Of course the other possibility is that aliens gave the mapmakers the data to make them in a much shorter time. Show me the evidence for that and I'll be happy to admit that I am wrong.
Europeans did not circumnavigate Africa until 1488, and maps before this show only imaginary land south of the Sahara. Yet within a few years, good approximations of Africa appear on maps from Portuguese charts. Are you suggesting that these maps are also not what they seem and that the Portuguese weren't able to map Africa?
DeleteUseless nitpicking here that really serves no purpose except to point out the great lengths self-proclaimed skeptics will go to try to belittle those who disagree with their beliefs. The leading questions— "are you suggesting..." are designed to imply that everyone who disagrees with these bullies is somehow racist.
DeleteI think you know exactly what I'm suggesting and I wish you would acknowledge the central point of the issue we're discussing. How else would you explain the accuracy and detail on these maps?
DeleteBut they aren't nearly as accurate as you claim. They are no more accurate than the famous Turkish Piri Reis map of 1513, itself explicitly based on Columbus's, Portuguese, and Spanish mapping of the Americas. This map shows clearly that accurate mapping could be accomplished in short order; therefore, no "centuries" of Chinese voyages are needed to explain a similar level of accuracy on Chinese maps copied from similar Spanish sources.
DeleteJason,
DeleteI have expressed my opinion and you have expressed yours. I believe the maps I saw suggest a much longer period of generation than you do. The difference between us is you have taken the "nobody came to North America before Chris" stance and aggressively refute anything and everything that is at odds with that position. For my part, I have been involved in providing definitive factual evidence of extensive pre-Columbian contact by Europeans (in these cases) with the Kensington Rune Stone, Tucson Lead Artifacts and the Bat Creek Stone. These artifacts are unquestionably authentic and prove the continent was traversed by non native cultures dating back at least two millennia.
With these facts as a backdrop, why is it such a problem to believe these cultures, and perhaps the Chinese as well, could have done extensive mapping and that knowledge then made its way onto these later maps?
It's speculation for sure, but it's well founded speculation based on at least these three (actually over 30) authentic artifacts. Maybe we should back up and start there. Once you accept them, the facts to support the detail on the maps become self evident.
Which of those artifacts is evidence that the Chinese reached North America?
DeleteThat's a perfect example, Scott, of circular reasoning. As you yourself said, only by assuming you are correct can we conclude you are correct. Even if we accept all of your other evidence for European contact, this implies nothing about Chinese contact. I would never suggest that it is impossible that any of these cultures COULD have ventured to America, only that the specific evidence you provide is not sufficient to warrant the conclusions you ascribe to it and therefore there is no reason to accept your conclusion that they DID travel here. You can't produce imaginary Chinese voyages out of your belief that Templars and Israelites did the same thing.
DeleteWho said any of these artifacts was evidence of the Chinese reaching North America? Please go back and read my above comment a little more carefully.
DeleteJason,
DeleteSeriously man, why would you even say I'm producing imaginary pre-Columbian Chinese voyages that we know took place? The question is did they make it to the America's? My answer is based on the map evidence I believe they did. You have asked for the basis of that opinion and I have provided it by stating the authentic "Big Three" artifacts prove multiple cultures visited these shoes for at least two thousand years. With the massive fleets that included over 20,000 people it certainly is no stretch to suggest they likely circumnavigated the entire globe.
"However, there is also no evidence to prove my assertions are wrong."
DeleteHere you commit the fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantiam, or Appeal to Ignorance Mr. Wolter. If this were a valid way to present an argument then I could tell you that Pluto has a candy chocolate center; and it must be so because you cannot prove otherwise. Though such fallacious reasoning might fool the ignorant, embracing same does not bode well for your credibility. And speaking of credibility, do you have any true academic credentials? Advanced degrees of some sort? Once might expect that a network calling itself the "History" channel might feature some sort of disclaimer that the wild speculation and personal interpretations of yours are "for entertainment purposes only". Or does the fine print within the credits reflect that sentiment? These are genuine concerns, because I see you as an entertainer first and foremost.
Joe,
DeleteThis response is why exactly why is it often fruitless to engage hard core skeptics. No matter the evidence presented they will not accept anything contrary to their beliefs which leads to a waste of time and energy. I cite the exchange with Jason as a perfect example. When they can't refute the evidence they attack your credibility which is what you just tried to do here.
Please spare us the tired, old desperate fallback argument of the arrogant of trying to dismiss me as not being credible because I don't have an advanced degree. Isn't the basis of your personal slur toward me is that a claim has to be based on scientific evidence? Of course it was. Do you really believe the veracity of a fact or piece of credible evidence is solely reliant upon the credentials of the individual who provides it? Please...
You can see me however you want; but just stop with the cliché arguments you know full well are ridiculous OK Joe?
When you ready to talk seriously about facts, evidence, and logic, let me know.
"When you ready to talk seriously about facts, evidence, and logic, let me know."
DeleteMr. Wolter,
I exposed you blatantly bolstering your claims by using the fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantiam. This is logic and you have violated it. So you're correct in one respect. It would be fruitless for you to argue with me if you're going to rely on fallacious reasoning; as it is easily exposed. But for you to ignore that fact... that you bolster your assertions by use of age old logical fallacies... reflects upon your deficiencies, not mine. And speaking of being deficient, yes academic qualifications are greatly important. Having such credentials and being able to hold up one's work to the scrutiny of peer review is how one gains true acceptance for their theories. Otherwise, anyone with a website, blog or... television show can poison the well of knowledge in their attempts to establish their own pure speculation and slip-shod research as uncontroverted fact. Impressing a gullible television audience that wants to believe in everything from ancient aliens impregnating our planet to Templar gold on Oak Island doesn't count. I would love to get to the evidence, but a simple examination of your reliance upon fallacy to make your points makes it quite evident that you misstate evidence and make hasty generalizations in its regard already geared to support your predetermined conclusions. That's where academic credentials could be helpful to you. You would have learned proper manner of study to do true research into the field you now embrace.
So facts? You make them up as you go along.
Evidence? You see in it only what you want to see.
Logic? You have no idea how to properly use it.
Welcome to The History Channel.
You fit right in.
Joe,
DeleteI have operated materials forensic laboratory for 30 years and to suggest I don't understand scientific method or peer review is insulting and offensive. Why you chose to associate me with aliens or Templar gold at Oak Island is a mystery, but it apparently serves to bolster your views.
You are welcome to have whatever opinions you want, but I don't consider your comments to be the least bit objective. Why should we take you seriously when you can't even get the channel our show airs on correctly. Fact: America Unearthed is on H2, not History Channel.
You have now wasted both your time and mine with your posts. Since you are clearly offended by me and my show; let me suggest we respectfully agree to disagree and for you to move on to a more productive use of your time.
"Why should we take you seriously when you can't even get the channel our show airs on correctly. Fact: America Unearthed is on H2, not History Channel."
DeleteWow. That's what you want to hang your hat on? I lack credibility because I pointed out that your show is on the History Channel and you so smartly point out that is not so. It's on H2... which stands for what, I might ask... History Channel 2? Wow. Do you really think your audience here will be impressed by that and will no longer take me seriously? And here it is, you are the one who claims their credibility is unfairly assaulted when pressed for credentials and proper use of logic. But for you to basically resort to playground antics... that's fair game.
Again, you committed the fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantiam, which I pointed out originally. Do you deny that obvious blunder on your part? Or do you insist that your views on anything are valid unless disproven? Very simple. Do you truly embrace logic or fallacy?
Logic is the basis of the work I do, so I think I'll embrace that. Your dogmatic insistence and cute demeaning labels remind me of another self-proclaimed expert and Amazon stalker who uses identical language and has to have the last word every time in every exchange.
DeleteYou have demonstrated the same bias and combative attitude that results in no chance of a productive exchange. Can we be done now?
If logic is the basis of the work you do, then you should both realize and admit that when you said the following, you committed the fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantiam (appeal to ignorance):
Delete"However, there is also no evidence to prove my assertions are wrong."
In this very thread, you state that you will admit things that you have gotten wrong. Will you admit then that you committed the above fallacious argument? Logic has rules. Logic has forms. How do I know this? Well, now we're getting into my academic credentials. But argumentum ad ignorantiam is not a "cute demeaning label". It is a fallacy as ancient as pre-Socratic Greek culture. Well documented. Go ahead. Google it, because if you ever were truly a student of logic you could use the refresher. Please. Look it up to confirm. You cannot claim you embrace logic when you cannot admit committing a very easily proven fallacious point.
Now I could go step by step through each and every one of your television episodes and show you more logical errors that you commit in abundance. But I suppose that would make me a stalker? No. I suppose you don't care to know true fallacies when committed and you will never refrain from using them, as you can't admit just one fallacy when it's right before your very nose. Fallacies sound good and fool most. The sophist in you embraces them.
If only the last word could be you admitting a simple fallacy obvious to all. I fear it will be more name calling however (the fallacy of ad hominem, by the way).
And to think I was going to read something constructive in this post.
DeleteSo is Mr. Scales implying that because the majority of school teachers only have a bachelor's degree means that they are not qualified to teach our youth? Wow! Alert the press everyone. If a 22 year old just out of college with no teaching experience is allowed to impregnate our youths' minds with false and antiquated material because the government and educational system are too slow to catch up with emerging evidence, then I say Scott is over qualified.
I happen to be an educated person and it doesn't take a PhD to open peoples' minds and encourage them to question past, current, and new theories. The older I get, the less tolerance I have for those who think they are better than the rest because they have advanced degrees. If anything, they can be the most ignorant. In this day and age very few fields really need advanced degrees. Medicine being at the top of the list. Why? Because in today's world, professional experience is more valuable.
Scott - more power to you!
"So is Mr. Scales implying that because the majority of school teachers only have a bachelor's degree means that they are not qualified to teach our youth?"
DeleteTo imply that would commit the fallacy of hasty generalization as well as a straw man argument. School curriculum is actually guided by numerous folks with advanced degrees and credentials. Teachers aren't rewriting history as Mr. Wolter attempts, but if they tried they'd probably have to answer to those higher up as previously mentioned.
You have me wrong however. I'm all for rocking the boat academically speaking (and hint-hint... see medicine as an industry first and foremost) There is a right way to go about presenting alternative theory, and then there is the History Channel way.
Joe,
DeleteIt just so happens that my statement is 100% correct and one I tend to use when the discussion has devolved into a stalemate. You may not like it and find it fallacious, but it's true. However, I do agree it doesn't advance the discussion.
There you go again with the "I'm better than you because I have an advanced degree" claim that is your own "fallacy of ad hominem."
How about this, you ask me a simple question about one of our episodes and I'll answer it. No commentary, just a simple question and we'll go from there. Oh yeah, if you happen to think of something positive we might have done that was interesting or educational you can point that out too.
Fire away!
H2 Joe; not History Channel. In science and in my laboratory details matter.
DeleteThis episode prompted me to do some of my own investigation and it became quite clear there are others who have written about this very same theory. This show opened my mind. That's more than I can say for some of the egocentric professors I had in college. In fairness, there were a few I greatly admired...the ones who encouraged us to always challenge the stas quo.
DeleteScott - I ordered a few of your books this evening. Looking forward to reading them.
"It just so happens that my statement is 100% correct and one I tend to use when the discussion has devolved into a stalemate. You may not like it and find it fallacious, but it's true."
DeleteWhat is "true" is that you resort to the use a fallacy to make your point when challenged and just admitted doing so. It's not that I don't like it or I find it fallacious. It is a fallacy; a well documented one at that. That's not discourse . This is not simply my point of view. It is not a perspective. It is beyond argument. It is a fact. When you back up your assertions by stating that your opposition has "no evidence to prove my assertions are wrong" you commit the fallacy of appeal to ignorance (argumentum ad ignorantium). This is not rocket science either. It's simple Logic 101. For you to be unable to recognize this and cling to this sort of reasoning as "true", necessarily makes you an unreliable source of knowledge and information, as only sophists knowingly rely upon fallacies to make their impressions.
Now you challenge me to ask a simple question in regard to one of your episodes? Well that simple question would be this, Why do you insist on fallacious reasoning to make your points? Seriously. When I have watched your show, I was taken aback by the lack of any logical foundation to your reasoning. That you can't even admit the use of the appeal to ignorance fallacy when your nose has been repeatedly rubbed in it leads me to believe that you will not admit to the use of any fallacious reasoning when set forth before your very eyes. You have been exposed, you remain exposed and it was quite simple to do.
As for your lack of credentials, I simply inquired due to your sloppy reasoning as easily revealed and for which you still cling to within this very discussion. It is an attack upon your methodology, or lack thereof; not of your person.
H2. History Channel. Details matter eh? This is the fallacy of Red Herring. You're just full of them, aren't you Mr. Wolter. At this point, the H should stand for hysterical, as this has been most fun.
If you were the person who ordered two books and the "Holy Grail in America" video off my website; they went out yesterday. I hope you enjoy them, and I completely agree with you about professors encourage students to think critically. I was fortunate to have a few of those as well.
DeleteJoe/Bryant,
DeleteIf this isn't Bryant Lister then it's his twin brother. If it is, then you are more of a disingenuous egotist than I thought. On the other hand, I did invite you to participate over here instead of trolling Amazon.
Let's get back to our discussion. I asked you to cite one simple example of what you think is, "the lack of any logical foundation to your reasoning" in our shows.
We're waiting Joe, Bryant, or whatever your real name is...
"If this isn't Bryant Lister then it's his twin brother. If it is, then you are more of a disingenuous egotist than I thought. On the other hand, I did invite you to participate over here instead of trolling Amazon."
DeleteParanoid much? And more name calling? No, I am no ghost that haunts you. As for a record of past posting, I've even been on Mr. Colavito's site and criticized his own use of ad hominem as well as unfair representations to make his own points. Shouted down by the fan-boys and their rather annoying chatter. So I do salute you in this regard; that you are giving me a fair opportunity to be critical. But be advised, I take no sides other than that on behalf of the Logos, and call them as I see them.
"Let's get back to our discussion. I asked you to cite one simple example of what you think is, "the lack of any logical foundation to your reasoning" in our shows."
I've already showed you a lack of logical foundation to your reasoning; the tired expression of yours committing an appeal to ignorance. You stood by your statement, despite it being a known fallacy. When you frame your arguments by use of fallacy, no matter what you say it is ultimately meaningless in any sense of true knowledge. It is a pity that logic isn't taught at an early age, and is rarely untaken even as an elective in college. People regard "fallacies" as that which they do not favor; something they believe to be wrong. That is incorrect. Fallacies are both formal and informal and have been categorized for well over two thousand years. All academics were built upon them and through them grew the scientific method and civilization itself. Recognizing true fallacies such as the appeal to ignorance (one of many), is now becoming a forgotten art form. But all you have to do, is catch someone using them, and all they say within such fallacious framework is rendered meaningless. But again, people have grown accustomed to their unfettered use, mostly through commercial purposes; as nearly every form of advertising contains fallacious reasoning. But when someone props themselves up to furthering the cause of knowledge, science, research and history... and yet clings to fallacious reasoning as you have done here, they become sophists; poisoning the well of true knowledge for their own gain.
"We're waiting Joe, Bryant, or whatever your real name is..."
And I am waiting for you Mr. Wolter. I am waiting for you to embrace the Logos and set your path on gaining true knowledge and using the platform you have attained for the good of mankind.
Is it name calling if it's accurate?
DeleteYou've stated your opinion about me multiple times and we get it. Now please give me an example from our show of the "fallacy" arguments you claim I routinely do.
Just give us one example; surely you can do that?
"Is it name calling if it's accurate?"
DeleteAs I'm not Bryant Lister, it was not accurate.
"You've stated your opinion about me multiple times and we get it. Now please give me an example from our show of the "fallacy" arguments you claim I routinely do."
I've given you one example from this very page, and not only will you refuse to admit the obvious nature of the fallacy in question, you believe yourself correct in continuing to use it. At that point rational discourse ends and you have wholly discredited yourself in this regard.
"Just give us one example; surely you can do that?"
Okay... so if the example from our recent discussion doesn't suffice, I suppose I will have to watch an entire episode of one of your shows, take copious notes, bring them back here... and then have you once again deny the obvious; making such an exercise on my part rather futile. Besides, I'm not getting paid for such time consuming work, and unlike notable others you seem to attract, this is not my obsession. But I do not wish to let you down, so I will instead go from memory from one of your shows I did catch in its near entirety. I think you hiked up to some cave in the Arizona desert and somehow linked carvings there to some little town in England where a deceased local there must have taught the desert dwellers the art (and please forgive me for the rather brief paraphrasing, as I hope it's enough to distinguish the episode in question). Again, going from memory, that episode included the following fallacies on your part:
Anecdotal Fallacy
Appeal to Probability Fallacy
Argument from Incredulity Fallacy
Association Fallacy
Base Rate Fallacy
Begging the Question Fallacy
Confirmation Bias Fallacy
Correlative Based Fallacy
False Attribution Fallacy
False Dilemma Fallacy
Hasty Generalization Fallacy
Incomplete Comparison Fallacy
Mind Projection Fallacy
Moral High Ground Fallacy
Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc Fallacy
Proof by Assertion Fallacy
Retrospective Determinative Fallacy
Slippery Slope Fallacy
I may have missed a few as it's been some time, but did spare you most of the Latin for easier understanding on your part.
Good luck in your future endeavors.
Thanks for clarifying my maladies. I'll be sure to include this list the next time I go in for therapy.
DeleteThis was fun...
When will these guys realize that you will post their opinions but you will only engage in constructive debate if they offer constructive criticism/conversation. Maybe they aren't smart enough to realize that?
DeleteThis latest one reminds me of a co-worker who repeats himself only because he didn't like the first answer and thinks he will get the answer he wants (the one to prove his point = incorrect) if he asks multiple times. Talk about an obsession.
I'm pretty sure I know who this person is and he has a easily recognized MO. When pressed for details, he caves and resorts to telling me why I'm wrong about everything, not what it is that I'm wrong about.
DeleteYep, I'd call it obsessive too.
"I'm pretty sure I know who this person is and he has a easily recognized MO."
DeleteThis is it, in a nutshell, so to speak. What you are wrong about can be summed up quite succinctly. You give great weight to your own speculation and base your conclusions upon it as if it were sound premises; ignoring basic principles of logic in doing so. You are in fact wrong about many things when faulty reasoning leads you to your own conclusions. Considering I have never written to you or about you prior to this thread, and have never met nor spoken to you personally, I am in the best position to judge this for myself. Thus it is rather amusing that you think you know who I am and try to impress your anonymous fan-boy with such deep perception. Well, if you are so firm in your convictions of who I am, then we can place a wager on it in any amount you are willing to pay. Perhaps anonymous fan-boy would like to join in?
On another note, forgive me for believing you to be a sophist. A sophist actually realizes they are poisoning the well for their own gain. I've come to believe that your ego has you actually believing that you are rewriting history in true form. Unfortunately, in addition to said ego, you lack the basic reasoning skills to realize the error in your ways. Your ego certainly will not allow you to admit the obvious use of fallacy and your only fans are rather gullible to somehow believe your plight is above well established principles of logic and reasoning. Logic must therefore have been conceived by that same conspiracy. Yes, those "mainstream" scientists/historians with their secret agenda and "religious" cult-like following. They're the bad guys, while you ride your white horse to victory. Logic be damned.
Let me know if you care to make a wager on my identity. Lord knows I couldn't just be someone who happened to catch one of your shows and thought I could somehow get through to you via logic and reasoning.
Haven't your figured it out yet? We don't care what you think of me nor do we care who you are.
DeleteFor your information I took a logic class in college and it has served me well enough to know there is no logic to your recent posts. That is why unless you start posting something constructive there's no reason to keep the skipping record on the turntable.
Columbus had maps he went by that were drawn up prior to his voyages.
ReplyDeleteThese maps are not in museums, many are dust if at that. This is a very
open question. His voyage is less of a risk if there is more of a lore. The
irony of a lack of footnotes, and very open claims! If read a certain way,
Plato, the Labors of Hercules, Lucian of Samosata's True History & Moorish
accounts of very successful Basque Cod*fishing fleets give him insights
as do an English court take on Auld Viking and Irish Myths and/or Legends!
http://www.amnh.org/explore/science-bulletins/bio/documentaries/will-the-fish-return/the-sorry-story-of-georges-bank
http://www.emis.de/journals/NNJ/reviews_v3n3-Bangura.html
Even mathematics is not just only
Western CIV 101 or 102... (enjoy!)
Herr Leibniz & Herr Newton created
their own unique and curious notation
systems, their own format for a much
older lore that they had access to before
the manuscripts became dust. Same
goes for the older charts prior to the better
clocks of the 1700s and all Mariner's Astrolabes!
The 1570 map basically shows America as a blob - so, I personally don't accept that it would require many centuries of surveys to create.
ReplyDeleteRutters ( nautical ) or Periplus were more important to Navigators than Maps- Maps are only used to get from point A to Point B on the open sea.
ReplyDeletePeriplus notes were probably passed secretly within their profession ranks, from master to apprentice. "Some what like the secrets of the Stone Masons". Only a few of these Italian handbooks were made public, and even fewer have survived to this day. "Turned to dust now - as Anonymous stated above".
Did Pre-Columbian Explorers have Rutters-did the Basque fishermen off the Grand Banks have Rutters?
Did Columbus have a set of old Rutters and used them in conjunction with a Map? Did other Pre-Columbian Explorers find some old Rutters and Maps?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rutter_(nautical)
Scott,
ReplyDeleteI have read your exchange with Jason Colavito on Chinese maps to date. Given your willingness to credit pre-Columbian trips by medieval Europeans to out of the way places (e.g., Vikings to western Minnesota, an Englishman named Rough Hurech to southern Arizona) with little or no outside support), you are amazingly pessimistic about the possible pace of European exploration after Columbus, during a period of such prolific exploration that it was known as the "Age of Discovery."
So here's my question: Would you please cite one detail on one specific map (and please identify the map) that could not reasonably be expected to be identified before the date that map claims to have been drawn, and give some factual explanation to back it up? Merely saying that you know isn't enough to rebut a skeptic if you do not explain why you know.
Thank you in advance for your reply.
Harry,
DeleteLike Jason, you are quite adept at framing an argument with assertions ("little or no support") trying set self-serving rules which I am not going to let you do. The basis for my argument in this thread is the "Big Three" (Kensington Rune Stone, Bat Creek Stone and Tucson Lead Artifacts) prove their were multiple expeditions to the America's over at least two thousand years. That said, ALL aspects of the detail in the 1609 Chinese map (rivers, lakes, mountain ranges, coastlines, labeling of cities and other geographic landmarks) was striking and fits nicely with the likelihood the map was assembled in part by earlier maps made by much earlier surveyors and cartographers.
Debating our conflicting opinions about specific details on the map is a waste of yours, mine, and everyone else time who is reading this thread. Let's be honest, neither you, Jason, or the other die-hard skeptics believe in any pre-Columbian contact and will argue ad nausea till everyone gives up and goes home.
You are welcome to post as many comments as you like here, but the fact that members of your "pack" shows no sign of objectivity reduces this entire exchange to futile exercise.
But then; that was the point all along wasn't it guys?
I DO believe in pre-Columbian contact. The Vinland sagas and the archaeological remains at L'Anse aux Meadows prove that Norse settlers arrived in Newfoundland, where they were outnumbered and driven off by Native Americans.
DeleteThe evidence isn't nearly that strong for Chinese contact. Where are the Chinese records of voyages across the Pacific, like we have for Zheng He's voyages in the Indian Ocean? Where are the archaeological remains? And I don't mean a wall that looks like it could have been made by the Chinese, I mean remains that can be securely dated to the 15th century and demonstrate building styles that the Chinese used and the Native Americans didn't. If you can find that kind of evidence, then I will definitely believe you.
Scott,
DeleteYou are wrong about me. Like the Anonymous who posted on 12/24/14 at 11:24 AM, I have no doubt that Vikings reached Canada well before Columbus because the evidence is clear on that point. I am also open to the possibility that Scandinavians, Polynesians and, yes, the Chinese, reached the United States before Columbus.
Taking the questions and counter-arguments of skeptics seriously, instead of brushing them off when they are inconvenient or irritating, is an important part of good science. You fail to consider that taking criticisms and contrary evidence into account can lead to a stronger version of your theory, if it is valid, because it alerts you to weaknesses in the existing version of the theory that will spur you to look for better evidence or a more accurate version of the theory.
So why am I so interested in details of the map? It is not because I am challenging the map's genuineness, but because I want to evaluate its accuracy. And I want to do so because you obviously think that its alleged accuracy is a smoking gun that proves the case for massive Chinese pre-Columbian exploration of the United States. But that accuracy can only be judged by looking at the details of the map and comparing them to the real geography of North America.
Fortunately, I think that your assertion to RLewis that "the entire Western Hemisphere had incredible detail and accuracy of landforms and river systems" does answer the question I previously posed.
Harry,
DeleteYour points are well taken and perhaps I got caught up in thinking you part of a non-serious coordinated attack. If I wasa wrong I apologize.
I do understand your point about the lack of details on the western side of the map. My point is that if Dr. Lee is correct that the map was actually originally made by the Chinese in the 15th century, then ANY detail along the western coastline or the western interior of North America is significant.
It appears we might be debating under two different assumptions about the who made the map and when it was original made. Keep in mind, if Dr. Lee is correct, then where did the data come from to create such a detailed map (for that time period) of the Western Hemisphere?
Scott,
DeleteThank you for your gracious reply to my last post. I like to believe that any objections or questions I would address to you about your work are made in a serious manner and reflect my genuine thoughts and concerns about the subject at hand.
I agree that the map is detailed, but it appears to me that many of the details are wrong, sometimes blatantly so. Before I explain what I mean, I need to make two important points.
First, if I am right, it does not disprove that Chinese sailors reached the US, but it does tend to discredit the map as something that scholars must accept as evidence of such a voyage, because it makes it more likely that every detail the map does get right could derive from European geographical knowledge of the time.
Secondly, I was able to pay particular attention to the map Dr. Lee showed you while watching two reruns of this episode, and the map looked very much like one (described as a Japanese reprint of c. 1604, based on the original 1602 version) that I found on the internet before viewing the first rerun (in a Wikipedia article on “Kunyu Wanguo Quantu”). The Wikipedia copy gives me the option of magnifying selections of it for close examination. Of course, I would prefer to examine the precise map that Dr. Lee showed you, but that was not on camera long enough to allow the kind of careful examination I needed to do (and, of course, anything I say below is based on the assumption that two maps are substantially the same).
I could give you several other examples of blatant inaccuracies, but I will focus on two that affect the area explored by Lewis and Clark, since Dr. Lee called special attention to that region: (1) The map shows a mountain range extending across the United States in roughly an east-west direction from the Appalachians to the Rockies (it looks like the same range is visible on the map that Dr. Lee showed you). No such mountain range exists in real life. (2) On the map, the Mississippi River ends well south of the mountain range I just mentioned, and the only tributary that flows into it from the west – and therefore the only possible candidate for the Missouri River – is quite short (it looks like not much more than 100 miles long). The real Missouri is over 3,000 miles long.
China, though, has long been highly bureaucratic. If there was a Chinese voyage to US territory before Columbus, I would not be surprised to find contemporary records in the Imperial archives that would indicate both the route and what the voyagers encountered there. If such a voyage occurred, that might be a more fruitful line of inquiry, by a historian knowledgeable of Mandarin Chinese writing.
RLewis,
ReplyDeleteThe final map Dr. Lee showed me of the entire Western Hemisphere had incredible detail and accuracy of landforms and river systems and was dated 1609. The Spanish made limited incursions into parts of western North America, but how was it possible to map these areas to the level of detail we see when we are led to believe it was Lewis and Clark who first mapped parts of North American two centuries later?
What I come away with is these early Chinese maps support that extensive mapping of the America's took place before Columbus. In my opinion, it likely took hundreds of years to achieve this level of detail and knowledge. It could have taken less time, but logistically I don't see it happening that quickly.
The map does not show incredible detail. It shows the west coast of North America inaccurately, as a hypothetical blob (the smooth coastlines are mapmakers' indication that the construction is tentative) with a large, round peninsula where British Columbia now is. Notice how much more detailed and accurate the Spanish areas such as Baja California are compared to the wildly inaccurate north. Also, Kamchatka is missing, an odd omission for a Chinese world mapping expedition. In short, there is no evidence of anomalous accuracy, let alone hundreds of years of careful measurement. Apparently, the Chinese were bad at measuring.
DeleteScott,
DeleteExactly which river systems do you think were mapped too accurately to be based plausibly on European explorations between 1492 and 1609?
Harry,
DeleteWe are going to dispense with the nit-picking and talk big picture and start with the authentic artifacts that prove extensive contact dating back at least two thousand years.
Let's get after the meat of the matter and then we can have the after dinner mints.
You up for that?
Harry's asked you to provide one specific piece of hard evidence instead of airy assertions. That IS the "meat of the matter."
DeleteScott,
DeleteDon't change the subject. One can't test assertions in a vacuum. What you call "nitpicking" is merely a way to determine if these maps are, in fact, "authentic artifacts" that show any contact before Columbus by demonstrating that you have a real basis for your claims and are not merely jumping to conclusions.
I want you to back up the claim you made to RLewis that there are accurate representations of river systems that could not have been mapped by Europeans by 1609 by naming at least one. Are you up for that?
Scott, you asked for "skeptics" to offer "valid criticism," and Harry did just that. It's incumbent upon you to back up your claims with facts. Conclusions are built up from specifics, not imposed down from beliefs. I, too, would like to know which parts of the map you feel exceed European knowledge of the early 1600s.
DeleteJason: When you personally inspected the map under discussion, what statistical analysis did you perform on it to make accuracy comparisons with more modern maps? That is, you claim that the map under discussion is not accurate and that the Chinese were very bad at measuring...so, what proof do you offer, or is it just an opinion you have?
DeleteScott,
DeleteSorry but you challenged the skeptics to talk about the claims you are making about these maps. They showed up and did. Now you are claiming they are being to granular and the bigger picture should be looked at.
You invited this and well I think they have provided reasonable evidence to debunk (I hate that word) your claims. Speculation does not ever equal truth, it is a step into uncovering truth. I mention that because there seems to be a confusion in your statements about what speculation is. It is up to the person who speculates to them research and than demonstrate that what was once speculated is in fact truth. You have not done that here.
I do not think it is unreasonable to speculate that the Chinese may have come to North America before the Europeans, the most certainly had the capability but nothing you have presented establishes that.
It does establish that the Chinese, like the rest of the world, showed interest in the Americas after European colonization and exploration began in the early 1500's which is consistent with our current historical model that the first significant contact with the Americas came at the time of Columbus. There is no doubt that there was earlier contact but it was not significant enough to have any cultural and historical impact on the rest of the known world at the time.
Mr. Nameless,
DeleteSpecific rivers are Harry's "meat" and he is welcome to chew on that. I find ALL the rivers on the 1609 Chinese map to be accurate and striking. It is the "Big Three" that are the real meat that serves as the basis for my comments.
Care to go down that road or are you going to continue to wallow?
Harry,
DeleteThere is no way to determine the map's authenticity by debating the accuracy of the river systems and you know that. I have repeatedly expressed my opinion they are relatively accurate for the time and you have chosen not to accept it. What Europeans would have accurately mapped the Mississippi/Missouri watersheds prior to 1609?
Michael,
DeleteI give the skeptics credit for coming over and taking a crack at me; this is great. However, they have debunked nothing nor have I stated it is a fact the pre-Columbian Chinese made it to the America's. I simply expressed my opinion they likely did. Sorry about the confusion.
I do agree with your point, "There is no doubt that there was earlier contact but it was not significant enough to have any cultural and historical impact on the rest of the known world at the time."
If there was meaningful impact, it has faded over time and is no longer recognizable.
Scott,
DeleteI appreciate your willingness to respond to everyone's questions about the map you used as evidence in your claim. However you are consistently stating that people should be open minded about the possibility of these voyages but become dismissive when individuals like Harry and Michael provide counter arguments on the authenticity of the evidence. When they provide a well researched and thought out response you claim that they are nitpicking and abruptly change subject onto three artifacts that have nothing to do with potential Chinese voyages. You claim that the map is incredibly accurate however when others like Michael and Harry point out the inaccuracies (especially in the areas of the north west portions of the continent) you are again dismissive.
These others have provided alternative evidence on the claims that this post Columbian map (1602) does not show evidence of a pre Columbian Chinese voyage to the Americas. Evidence that is the cornerstone to the claims made on this episode, if you are really seeking the truth wouldn't make logical sense to explore their points in further detail?
JD
I assume you're referring to the Kunyu Wanguo map, which actually reflects the state of European exploration very well. The Caribbean, Mexico, and the coasts of South America are all fairly accurately represented, because that's where the Spanish and Portuguese had their bases in the New World. The Amazon River appears on the map, as one would expect after Francisco de Orellana traveled down most of the river in 1541–1542, but it zigzags way more than it should, because nobody had accurately surveyed it yet. In North America, the Mississippi is visible, but it doesn't go as far north as the river really does, because Hernando de Soto's expedition saw the southern portion, but not the whole river, in 1541. The Colorado River and the Rockies appear because the Spanish started exploring that region with Francisco Vásquez de Coronado's expedition, at the same time as de Soto and de Orellana. They established a permanent presence in what is now New Mexico in the 1590s at the latest.
ReplyDeleteIn contrast, the interior of North America is much more vague. The St. Lawrence seaway on the map extends much farther than it should—all the way to the Arctic. It's the Northwest Passage, the easy water route between the Atlantic and the Pacific that Europeans wanted to believe existed, though they were finally forced to admit it didn't early in the 19th century—partly thanks to the Lewis and Clark expedition.
Most damning is the west coast of North America. The Kunyu Wanguo map only draws a vague picture of the West Coast north of Baja California. An inlet where California should be might stand for San Francisco Bay, but it's hardly the accurate representation we'd expect if the Chinese had settled and built walls nearby. North of that, everything becomes a vaguely imagined blob with randomly scattered mountains. No Columbia or Fraser Rivers, none of the complex inlets and islands of Washington state and British Columbia, and only a huge, indistinct bulge that might represent Alaska. If the Chinese had crossed the Pacific, you'd expect them to have arrived on the Pacific coast of North America first and mapped it more accurately than anything else on the continent.
The map I've been referring to in my commentary is the 1609 Chinese map.
ReplyDeleteIs there an image of the 1609 map online? Did it depict more detail in North America than this map does:
Deletehttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/71/Kunyu_Wanguo_Quantu_%28%E5%9D%A4%E8%BC%BF%E8%90%AC%E5%9C%8B%E5%85%A8%E5%9C%96%29.jpg
OK; I went back and watched the latter part of the episode to get my facts straight and I was wrong about one thing; the date the Kunyu Wanguo map "went public" was 1602, not 1609. My mistake.
DeleteWhat we have all missed in our postings to this point is Dr. Lee's insistence the map was not made by Matteo Ricci using European maps, but that it was map by the Chinese "sixty years before Columbus set sail." He pointed out in convincing fashion, that as an agent for the Vatican, it is untenable that Ricci would not include Florence, Italy, or many of the known Papal States on his map.
With regard to the lack of detail claimed by Jason and the other skeptics, specifically on the West Coast, I could not disagree more. If indeed the map predates Columbus by 60 years, the presence of ANY detail is amazing. Granted, this hasn't been definitively proven. However, the testy claims made here by the skeptics require a little more humility and a lot more facts.
This 1569 Mercator map is a fact:
Deletehttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4b/Mercator_1569_world_map_composite.jpg
Its depiction of North America is fairly similar to that of the Kunyu Wanguo. Mexico and Florida are detailed, the interior of the continent is not. Even some of the inaccuracies are similar: the two vague lumps on the West Coast and the east–west mountain range cutting across what is now the center of the United States. The Kunyu Wanguo shows nothing about North America that was not available to Europeans of the late 16th century.
Therefore, the map is only evidence of Chinese exploration in the Americas if its information does predate European exploration of the Americas. The omission of some details about Italy is pretty slim evidence. The map doesn't leave much space to label Italy, so it's really not feasible to include all the political details. It would be rather surprising if a Jesuit left Rome off a world map. But does the Chinese label on Italy mention Rome? If it does, then there's nothing surprising about the omission of the rest.
As I have said, the Kunyu Wanguo makes some of the same errors that Europeans of the 16th century made—the bulges on the side of North America and the east–west mountain range from the Mercator map, and the Northwest Passage from the popular European imagination. That is crucial. The Chinese and the Europeans could have gotten accurate information independently, if they explored and properly mapped the same places. But when people get things wrong, they rarely get them wrong in the exact same way, unless they're copying from each other. The presence of European errors on the Kunyu Wanguo is strong evidence that the map comes from exactly when it's supposed to. Lee's argument about Italy is not as strong.
Damn, I just can't resist. This Jason guy has raised his head. At least he has a personal stake in this.
ReplyDeleteIn one of his posts, the comment was made that amounted to why the Chinese did not claim ownership of the continent.......
Well, since this is history, lets start with the basics.
1) when would they have claimed ownership. If you use pre 1800's dating, then you should know there was tremendous death, wars and destruction going on in that part of the world from the "colonial" powers. It takes no imagination to figure out the destruction that was done. And we thought the Japanese were bad when they invaded.
2) if you are using post 1800's, then you, especially as a historian, should know that the incredibley rich and cold blooded robber barons of the USA used, of all things, Chinese slave labor to build the railroads, mines, and timber industries. And yes, when a Chinese laborer died in the Sierra Nevada's, his body was thrown off the cliffs to get out of the way.
And now, Jason, you have made the statement, why didn't they claim ownership.
Perhaps the posters here need to read the biography of Ricci available at any online bookstore.
ReplyDeleteWhat they are ignoring (and they are ignoring) is the time frame that information was made available to cartographers. Ricco, once he went to China (I'm going to force people to look it up), never left the country. So how did he get the information that he needed and from who.
Also, in that time frame, the posters here are forgetting or ignoring the secrecy and the fighting of the medieval and renaissance periods. Did rival sea captains make every effort to destroy rival sea captains and steal their maps. Of, course they did. The first rule of a navigator was to destroy the maps if the battle was lost. Do you really think everybody and his cat and dog shared maps. I think Jason should have the answer to that one.
And finally, the question of signatures has come up. "Plagiarism" and "copyright" are modern inventions. Most work was done by scribes, etc. Ricci himself probably never drew anything but he signed for it because he was the "top dog". There was no law anywhere in the world up until modern times where "ownership" was a "legal" commodity. There was no "library of congress".
They are also ignoring the word that every historian is more then familiar with and it really is a dangerous word.
------ redaction -----
Dave,
ReplyDeleteThese are interesting points; would Jason or anyone else care to respond?
Ricci arrived in China in 1582, 40 years after the major Spanish expeditions I mentioned. European nations were secretive about navigational details, but I doubt they made an effort to keep the general results of inland expeditions secret. Accounts of de Orellana's expedition were published in Europe in 1542, for instance. A European cartographer 40 years later would have been well aware of the general locations of the rivers de Orellana, de Soto, and de Coronado found.
DeleteAccording to Dr. Lee, the map was made more than 150 years before Ricci arrived in China.
DeleteYes, and if he could prove that assumption the map would be very impressive. His evidence is awfully slim.
DeleteSlim in this case is highly subjective; it seems to me we really don't have a consensus on when it was made. Only that it was made public in 1602. Even with that as the only known fact, it's still an impressive map and based on Chinese text, I'd say the most likely makers of the map were the Chinese.
DeleteMaybe more info will come out in the future to shed more light?
There is more information out there, but you haven't looked for it. The map's Chinese text includes a preface SIGNED by Ricci (http://www.bo.astro.it/dip/Museum/english/car_65.html), as well as the names of the Chinese cartographer and printer (https://www.lib.umn.edu/bell/riccimap). I can't tell from online sources what the full text says, nor whether the same text was present on the copy that Lee showed you. Apparently a full description of the text on the maps was written by Pasquale d'Elia, but unfortunately it's in Italian.
DeleteThe map says Ricci worked on it. Its depiction of the Americas reflects the state of Spanish exploration in the late 16th century and incorporates the same errors that appear on European maps from the late 16th century. Against that, the only evidence seems to be the omission of states in Italy. Italy takes up less than 1/1500th of the Earth's surface area. It's not all that surprising that the half a dozen states that divided the peninsula in Ricci's time would be left out for reasons of space.
I see here that an "anonymous" has made the statement
ReplyDelete....you'd expect them to have arrived on the Pacific coast of North America first and mapped it more accurately than anything else on the continent.....
It is very accurate. If you wish to clarify the point, you would need to have "longitude" calculated into the map. And according to the current story, "longitude" was an invention of John Harrison and his marine chronometer in 1773. Although, that is now in something of contention. Magellan is said to have used "longitude".
You cannot use "modern" thinking and redact to their thinking. I fault modern historians with that problem and it is a huge problem.
The longitude problem would have applied to the mapping of any place on Earth. So I ask again, why are Florida, Mexico, and Central America mapped so much more accurately on the Kunyu Wanguo than the West Coast? The map shows no British Columbian islands, no Puget Sound, no Columbia River. An inlet on the California coast may represent San Francisco Bay, but it is not shaped like San Francisco Bay. I see nothing on that map that Europeans of the late 16th century could not have known.
DeleteGranted, the Kunyu Wanguo map was made in 1602, so it's possible that when Mr. Wolter refers to a 1609 map, he's thinking of something different. Is there an image of the 1609 map online anywhere?
Do you agree that the lower portion of the map is the continent of Antarctica. If so, here are the dates of importance
Delete-- the map I'm referencing below is from the Japanese Kano Collection, Tohoku University Library.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kunyu_Wanguo_Quantu#mediaviewer/File:Kunyu_Wanguo_Quantu_(%E5%9D%A4%E8%BC%BF%E8%90%AC%E5%9C%8B%E5%85%A8%E5%9C%96).jpg
....two page colored edition (1604?), copy of the 1602 map Kunyu Wanguo Quantu by Matteo Ricci at the request of the Wanli Emperor....
1) Capt. James Cook voyages (British)
a) 1st voyage -- 1768-71
b) 2nd voyage -- 1772-75
c) 3rd voyage -- 1776-79
2) Capt. Megellan - voyage from 1519-1522
(he never went to China - no contact or communication)
3) Vasco da Gama - voyages from 1497-1554. My reading is he never was on the east coast of India -- so again how did this information get on the map. He was never in China.
4) Russian Capts. Fabian Gottlieb von Bellingshausen and Mikhail Lazarev on Vostok and Mirny -- 1st sighting -- 1820.
5) The first "recorded" sighting of Antarctic was in 1820.
The actual mapping of the coast which is shown on this map was not fully completely by the Western Powers until the 20th century.
If you agree that this is Antarctica, then you will have to provide the name of the ship and captain who landed in Antarctica for the 1602 map to be drawn. This means the information for the map had to be collated prior to the printing of the map. How many years would have taken to fully map the coast of Antarctica using sailing technology of the 16th century. Did this take 10 years, 20 years, or -------- and very important, who was it.
You will also notice, if this is Antarctica, that this shows the Strait of Magellan and Australia, which is shown as attached to the (unknown) Antarctica.
No, I won't jump to that conclusion. Europeans of the time believed that the land in the northern hemisphere should be balanced by land in the south, and for centuries, they put Terra Australis on their world maps—a continent far larger than the actual continent of Antarctica. The details about it tended to be imaginary. See, for example:
Deletehttps://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5b/Johannes_Sch%C3%B6ner%2C_globe_of_1533%2C_southern_hemisphere.jpg
Scott, what undermines your entire body of work for me is your belief in curses. Almost every show this season you express your belief in curses.
ReplyDeleteThat, to me, basically discredits all of your assertions since you are willing to accredit events to ‘magic’. Science is supposed to save us from that nonsense, not send us back into its arms.
Beaker,
ReplyDeleteFor the record, I have never stated a belief in curses because I don't believe in them. Please go back and double check what you think you heard. I would never express a belief in curses; period.
Having said this, I do respect the fact that other people believe in curses. That doesn't mean that I believe in them.
It is good to see you say the above outright. If that is the case, I think post production must be playing with the flow of dialog. Whether or not you actually state your disbelief literally, I feel the viewer walks away with the idea that you believe the curses. I will pay closer attention as old episodes are replayed.
DeleteA few that come to mind are the diving into the cursed pool, montezuma & captain kidd’s curse, or where landholders are asked about various curse legends.
The way the segments are cut apart, and how H2 likes to go to commercial on a dramatic question, really does make it seem as though you believe they are plausible and in need of investigation. The hypothesis is severed from the conclusion so that the viewer is left with a few minutes to believe in magic while Geico makes them laugh.
Like when the guy was rambling on about the cursed pond, it would have been refreshing to see you dismiss them outright. I feel like the current treatment only furthers the legend, instead of revealing the factual basis. I can understand you don’t want to offend people, but no belief should be safe from scrutiny, from the mainstream to mystical.
It is with sadness that I probably have to admit the audience wants … ‘cursed pirate treasure’, and H2 needs that audience. You should push back a bit on the mystical stuff, imho.
Beaker,
DeleteIn the case of Montezuma's Treasure, I can see how you might have been confused what my personal position on curse's was. The landowner was adamant about there being a curse when I asked him outright. I didn't feel it was my place to challenge him, especially given I was trying to obtain permission to dive on his property. I'm sure you can appreciate that.
You are also correct the network edits things in such a way as to create mystery and intrigue going into a commercial for obvious reasons. I can appreciate some people being annoyed by this, but it is one of the realities of television. Overall, I think we do a better than average job compared to other shows.
I do push back plenty on many things, but overall I'm comfortable with how they portray me, our guests, and the subject matter. A very select few have been disappointed or upset about how they were portrayed. However, if I were to name them I think most would agree they brought the poor portrayal onto themselves. It's not a perfect program, but in the grand scheme of cable television it's pretty damn good and I'm proud to be a part of it.
Now that I have read ALL of the posts, I see holes in "readership". I trust Scott to have done his homework and I put it to the feet of the "responses" here to do theirs.
ReplyDeleteI have tried to cover all bases also.
1) the reality of Columbus having maps is only a VERY recent acknowledgement. If you were to read the work of Morrison you would see that he condemned anyone who said Columbus had a map. This is something Jason should also know.
2) The work of Gavin Menzies has now and was authenticed. Read his books.
3) So far (might have missed it), no one has challenged or questioned the research done by the Chinese. It should be noted about the work of Dr. Siu-Leung Lee (Journal Editor) at the following web site.
http://www.midwesternepigraphic.org/index.html
Did the Carthaginians map ANTARCTICA, and hence the convention
ReplyDeleteof knowing a vast continent is the home of the South Pole? A fascinating
Secrets of the Dead episode postulates Carthaginian voyages to Brazil
via a trade wind caught near or at the X/Y axis of the Mid-Atlantic and the
Equator. We know the Romans were not handed Carthaginian maps, we know
the Romans had salt poured onto the fertile soil of Auld Carthage after the
siege and the sack of the city. Columbus had access to the maps of the Moors.
He was literate. He pitched his idea to the crown'd heads of Europe. Spain was
in a unique position, despite the book*burnings. Even if Columbus left 9/10ths
of his maps behind, he had poured over them. I agree that the Great Age of The
TONTINES was infamous for its secrets, almost to have Capt'n Kidd sounding
like the village gossip, poor triple*hanged dissembling fool that he was, and all
treasure hunting hath its murky waters, otherwise, why didst FDR be on Oak
Island prior to Woodrow Wilson's presidency other than to test all the Dear Isle
theories... truly ruly truly, CARTHAGE hath a lingering lore and the 1300s did
have a global Black Death that raced along silken trade routes. We frame the
basic trade question newly century by century and aeon by millenium neatly...
As a student in the 70's and 80's, I was taught, as many Christians around the world are taught, that Columbus "discovered" America. I was taught this because it was the white man's tradition. We practice things or believe ideas because of tradition. Some traditions are based on facts; some are not. I was never given evidence in school that CC did discover America. I was told to believe it because it was written in a book. American schools are well overdue for a new status quo. For anyone to believe that no other culture visited America prior to Columbus is not only absurd but it's ignorant. Just because early American contacts did not leave a cultural imprint does not mean they did not make pre-Columbian visits to America. Perhaps these pre-Columbian visitors left only a DNA imprint, which could possibly explain many of the physical variations of Native Americans. Much of the world's cultural impact is based upon religion. Not all cultures had a desire to spread or impart their religious beliefs on others during their exploration, thus leaving what we perceive as little or no cultural impact.
ReplyDeleteWhether Columbus came to find a safe haven for persecuted Jews or to spread Catholicism, it is naive to think he just gathered his fleet and set sail for an undisovered land. Why risk the lives and years to discover something that may not exist? IMHO, it would only make sense that Columbus sailed the ocean blue because he and others knew that America did exist. The Chinese map seems quite fitting and convincing. My question to the skeptics is: why does it seem impossible or unlikely that the Chinese made it to America before Columbus? I have yet to see you deliver anything to the contrary. Prove to us that the Chinese did not arrive to America prior to Columbus. I promise to keep an open mind.
With that said, this white catholic is going back to wrapping Christmas presents. A tradition, I might add, we owe thanks to the Chinese invention of paper. Talk about a cultural impact.
Scott - have you considered doing a special episode to give us updates with new findings or new clues. It's not surprising that your show reaches many people and I have to believe that you receive additional information after airing. I am particularly interested in an update on the spearhead found in Hawaii. Any updates on that. Perhaps I should venture to that episode's blog thread.....I just don't want to have to wade through all the non-constructive criticism.
Sara,
DeleteYou make some excellent points here and the skeptics cannot and will not respond to your request for evidence the pre-Columbian Chinese did not make to the America's because such evidence doesn't exist. Keep in mind their arguments are not presented in the spirit of trying to seek out the truth, they are presented to distort, distract, and deceive away from it in order to control the discussion to maintain their status quo beliefs.
Nothing new has materialized with regard to the spearhead yet, but I would love to do follow-ups on some of the topics we've already explored as new information has come forward. Let's see what happens.
It's hard to produce conclusive evidence to prove a negative. But here are some important points:
DeleteWe know about Zheng He's voyages in the Indian Ocean because the Chinese kept records of them. We have no such records for Chinese expeditions far out into the unknown Pacific.
The Chinese already had extensive trade contacts in the Indian Ocean. They knew there were valuable things to be had there. The Chinese would have had no reason to venture into the Pacific beyond Japan, because they had no idea whether anything valuable, or even any land there. (The Portuguese went around Africa, and Columbus went across the Atlantic, because they wanted to reach Asia.)
Crossing the Pacific would have been easier and safer if the Chinese had established bases along the coasts of Siberia and Alaska, as the Portuguese did with Africa. No one has found evidence of such bases. It probably didn't help that Siberia is one of the least inviting places on the planet—the Chinese saw no reason to go that way.
If people from Europe or Asia had established long-term contact with Native Americans before Columbus' time, then Eurasian diseases would have swept through the Americas, where nobody had experienced them and nobody was immune. The Incas in South America had a devastating smallpox epidemic just 30 years after the Spanish established a permanent presence in the Caribbean. Yet there's no evidence that smallpox, measles, and many other Eurasian diseases were present in the Americas before Columbus. (The Norse didn't spread diseases to the inhabitants of Newfoundland because their settlement there was so short-lived, so this argument still leaves room for a Chinese settlement that was abandoned or died out soon after being established.)
Scott, let me prove you wrong: I will respond. It is not impossible that the Chinese came to America, but there is only ambiguous evidence in its favor. Some have cited the Fusang texts of the Liang Shu of Yao Silian (section on Fusang-guo, c. 635 CE) as evidence of an early trip to Mesoamerica, but the text contains so many wrong details (there were no horses in Mexico in the early centuries CE, for example) that it is useless as evidence. Others, like the Mayanist Michael Coe, Prof. Paul Tolstoy, and Prof. David Kelly have argued seriously that Chinese and Indonesian science diffused to Mesoamerica thousands of years ago.
DeleteIf the Chinese really come did in such numbers as you, Scott, imply with your claims of *centuries* of mapping and wall-building, you should see this reflected in Chinese texts. And yet the great geographies of medieval Chinese literature written at the imperial court, such as the Ling-wai tai-ta of Chou Ch’a-fei (1178 CE) and the Chu-fan-chi of Chau Ju-Kua (1225 CE)--have you read these? I have.--make no mention of the Americas, though some have tried to read references in them to Mu-lan-p’i (Spain) (in 3.4 and 1.35 respectively) as America. We should see evidence, too, in Chinese imperial maps and charts, and yet before 1602 there is nothing. The negative evidence, while of course not conclusive, is telling.
Now explain to me why I can cite documents and maps chapter and verse while the believers in Chinese voyages can offer only conspiracies and speculation--and not even the serious academic work that's already been done on the subject.
In short, you need to learn to differentiate between criticism of your specific claims--which are thinly sourced and poorly reasoned--and an outright rejection of an entire possibility. As I believe I have demonstrated, academics, scholars, and skeptics do not reject possibilities, only bad claims based on those possibilities.
Jason,
DeleteFirst, after all the posturing in the paragraphs above you conclude by agreeing with the possibility our episode supports; that it's not only possible, but even likely they came to the America's. Good, now we're getting somewhere.
But, yet again you can't seem to help yourself by throwing in a negative opinion because that likelihood doesn't go along with your beliefs. Calling the idea pre-Columbian Chinese came to the America's a "bad claim" is not appropriate in this discussion. You continue to demonstrate that you do not have the mentality of an open-minded and objective investigator.
You are purposely misrepresenting me, Scott. You are choosing not to see the difference between a possibility and a probability, and between what might have happened and what you can prove actually did. Your specific claims--that the wall in California is Chinese, that the maps represent Chinese explorations--are bad claims because they lack supporting evidence.
DeleteYou seem to feel that pointing out that the specific claims you make lack solid evidence--something you admitted many posts back in this very comments section--is a close-minded rejection of all possibility.
The bottom line is this: You can't will your hypothesis into reality by appealing to open-mindedness and possibility. Conclusions have to build up from facts, not be imposed downward from convictions. You shouldn't be angry or upset at skepticism; if your ideas can withstand criticism then they are worthy of consideration. If they fail even basic fact checking or tests of logic, then they don't.
When did I make the claim the stone walls in California were Chinese? I never said anything of the sort. I simply investigated the possibility and at this point, until conclusive evidence comes forward as to who actually built them, the Chinese possibility is still on the table. Are we clear on this point?
DeletePlease don't lecture me on how the scientific method and logic works. I've operated a materials forensic laboratory for 30 years and testified in dozens of legal cases as an expert witness; I get it. I welcome and encourage legitimate criticism when presented respectfully, but I have little patience for nasty, mean-spirited skepticism for skepticism's sake. I have watched you and many scholars deflect, demean, ignore and outright lie about factual evidence they don't believe in.
The "scholarship" applied to the Kensington Rune Stone, some I've witnessed first hand, for the past 116 years has been shameful, but you and other skeptics don't seem to want to talk about it. Can you please address my comments to you about the Bat Creek Stone and the Tucson Lead Artifacts you brought up below?
We've discussed the problems between the academic world of investigation and professional world of scientific investigation at length on this blog. Quite frankly, the academic model has failed miserably in too many cases and continues to criticize and attack instead of admitting they were wrong. The "Big Three" are your Achilles heel and they are addressed more and more people will lose faith in the academic way of investigating these kinds of questions.
Let me be clear about one more thing. I want to work with academics and scholars whenever I can. I've had a lot of great experiences both on the show and in real life, with wonderful, open-minded and objective academics; some I consider good friends.
DeleteI'm also willing to admit when I'm wrong and I'm pretty easy to get along with until the BS starts flying.
People give Colavito way too much attention. He's good at promoting his website. But he has never had a real job--he can google and use wiki--and nitpick, twist words and meanings, and promote himself as a defender of mainstream beliefs. He tries to depict those who question any mainstream beliefs as racists, Nazis, or kooks. He can be easily attacked but the truth is that he should really just be ignored. What he actually is can be summed up easily: he's a guy who watches tv shows he hates and then he writes about how much he hates them.
ReplyDeleteI couldn't agree more; although he is clever and intelligent enough to avoid serious trouble, he lacks any sense of open-mindedness and has zero patience for anything other than his own mainstream point of view when it comes to most history. He does believe in aliens having a profound impact on our history, but let's set that aside for now.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, people like him are actually a good barometer of how we are doing. When the skeptics get particularly upset and nasty it tells me we are making headway and likely on the right track. I do try to see the merit in the skeptic's arguments, but too often it's complaining simply for argument's sake.
He definitely is a self-promoter, but what he's pushing is more like he's own religion than a serious attempt to get to the truth. The tell-tale test is how he and his followers refuse to engage in a serious discussion of the "Big Three." These incredible artifacts alone render the foundation of the "Colavitology" belief system irrelevant.
Scott, you seem to have some trouble with reading comprehension, so please let me help you: I do not believe in ancient aliens. Your network colleague Giorgio Tsoukalos can testify to that.
DeleteI'm not quite sure how I would qualify as a self-promoter when I'm not the one with a TV show, a lecture tour, a full slate of radio interviews, etc. etc. I can't quite fathom how I have my "own religion" when I'm not the one of us who writes about and glorifies a goddess-based New Age faith.
As for the "Big Three"--The Bat Creek Stone was the very first claim of yours I ever wrote about, back in 2012. I found your geological report in Ancient American to be wanting. I discussed it again in reviewing your episode on the stone. Have you forgotten the exchange we had about the Tucson Lead Artifacts back in 2012? They are as fake as the day is long. The Latin, which you can't read, is wrong for the time period and taken from textbooks. I spoke with eminent geologists who demonstrated for me how to make the caliche you claim is old in only a few hours.
You are right, though: The artifacts are "incredible." They are not to be believed.
But Jason, you constantly argue that the ancient aliens idea influenced horror fiction, countless UFO writers, ideas on space science, and you have self-published a lot of books about ancient aliens. No matter which way you point in this you are constantly arguing that the ancient aliens idea impacted history--you appear to also boast that you are a best selling author in the ancient aliens arena, right? You promote yourself as a xenoarchaeologist, right? So now you are saying that the ancient aliens idea did NOT have a profound impact on our history?? And when you recently boasted about how massive your website was and how many visitors it gets, isn't all that some form of self-promotion? When you continually mention all the TV shows you are contacted by and those you are interviewed on, isn't that self-promotion?
DeleteJason,
DeleteJust what part of my Bat Creek Stone report was "wanting?" Please be specific. The Smithsonian is on more than thin ice and has exposed itself for their fraudulent conduct on this particular matter. The implications of their position are large and neither they, you, or anyone else has presented anything factual to refute the veracity of their discovery. Until something truly factual to refute them is presented, instead of the shameful arguments Mainfort and Kwas have tried, it's time to step up and accept the artifact's obvious authenticity and historical importance.
I don't remember our exchange about the Tucson Lead Artifacts because it must not have been memorable. Here again; you apparently don't understand the overwhelming pristine provenance of their discovery alone proves their authenticity. Just who are these "eminent" geologists that demonstrated for you the T-P conditions of the Silverbell Road environment in Tucson to produce a near solid, 12"-thick zone of caliche, 48-72" deep in naturally deposited alluvial sand and gravel the artifacts were discovered in? No self-respecting undergrad would look at the geological setting of this site and say something so silly. You're kidding me right? Don't even get me started on the secondary malachite and azurite mineralization on the backside of artifact 1A and B.
My knowledge of Latin is irrelevant since these artifacts are clearly genuine based on the geology. Therefore, logic demands the inscriptions are ancient and need to be treated as such. Until you can provide factual evidence (not rumor or misleading unfounded speculation) of intrusion; the artifacts are real and here again change the entire historical paradigm as we know it.
Is this the best you have to bring; "They are not to be believed?" You sound like priest proselytizing to the faithful. For a guy who has questioned my integrity, allowed idiots on his blog to call me things like a "pseudoscientist," a "fraud" and "racist," and then to "threaten to expose" a 25 year-old lawsuit over a $1,500 agate I was ordered to give back to a guy who then wouldn't take it, you'd think you bring a little better game than this? Is this how you think history is to be decided? By trying to attack my credibility is that how you think you can win?
I will give you credit for mastering the Internet by hijacking traffic driven by our show to your site. The problem is people end up with nothing but mean-spirited negativity and a misguided agenda. If you are serious about this subject matter then please try being a little more professional about it.
I didn't master the internet, Scott. In fact, I've repeatedly given your show free advice on how to get yourself ranked higher.
DeleteRegarding the Bat Creek Stone, I need no better source than you: I took your evidence at face value, and it failed to prove your claim. You concluded that your geological analysis (relative dating) could only say that the object was older than 1970, which, by not excluding the time of its discovery, provides no actual evidence of Late Antique age.
The eminent geologist I mentioned works for the Smithsonian in a high ranking position, but she has asked me to hold off on discussing her work further pending publication of her work later this year. I do not expect you to accept that as evidence since it is, for now, hearsay. Similar findings, though, were discussed in 1996 by the late James J. Quinlan of the U.S. Geological Survey. The short form: Quicklime can form the caliche and the malachite in a few hours or days. Doing the experiment was kind of fun. I ended up with a penny encrusted in "ancient" rock. I've spoken with several archaeologists, including Ken Feder, who concur that you are wrong about artifacts and that they are clearly intrusive. Regarding their "pristine" discovery, I take it you never read Don Burgess’s informative “Romans in Tucson? The Story of an Archaeological Hoax” in the Journal of the Southwest 51, no. 1 (2009).
But even if we take your claims at face value, they don't prove your conclusion, that these artifacts are "proto-Templar." The text on them clearly states that they were made by Jews and Gauls from Rome who came to Arizona and fought the Toltecs! And that's the problem: You expect us to believe that facts and inferences are interchangeable, and that to reject your conclusions is to reject you as person. It's your logic that's wanting, not your personality.
If we are descending into the realm of personal attacks, you are seriously going to hold me responsible for what visitors to my blog post in the comments section? I will refer you back to the beginning when I reminded you that I've offered all comers free advice on how to master the internet.
Jason.... you try and stabilize via a heavy handed
Deletered pencil deleat approach the roaring "zoo" that is
your Comment section. each thread has a life of its
own. some have between one to five comments but
if you say something perceptive about Scot Wolter,
we can easily see 100+ postings happen in less than
48 or 72 hours. From time to time another mortal draws
in more quips and comments, please at least say this
about the quantity and quality of the comments, paragraphs
are often wiser than one, two or three line zingers. its a zoo.
I have a profound respect for the way "Rev Phil" talks to
all inside the "zoo" because he shows a restraint. Most don't.
I'm saying the obvious. Folks in your comment section push
agendas and 'envelopes' and for a myriad of reasons thusly.
That's your rebuttal to the Bat Creek Stone? You've ignored the salient point; the weathering of the silty-clay from within the original grooves of the inscription by trying to imply this happened since its discovery? Seriously Jason? Do you really think we're that stupid?
DeleteAs I stated in my report, the weathering of the silty-clay could only have occurred over many centuries of exposure within a wet mound. You have also ignored another critical point; the veracity of the their discovery by John Emmert along with the C-14 dating that proved their antiquity by association.
Please don't try to insult us with claims that Emmert was "a drunk" or "he knew ancient Hebrew." This argumentation is not only an insult to the people reading this, but to his family, and the man himself. Remember, if you question this dig, you have to question all of his digs. If you question these digs, then you have to question ALL the digs the Smithsonian did. You can’t go there so let's face it; you lose on this point.
So, you claim to have a Smithsonian Institution scholar trying her hardest to put the Tucson artifacts down, but wants to remain anonymous until she can publish? Demonstrating the formation of hard water deposits in a fixed laboratory environment has nothing to do with the real world situation at Silverbell Road over the last 1200 years. But then, that's not the relevant point anyway is it Jason? Your only point is to bring out anyone and anything that you hope will put these artifacts down.
My speculation they were created by the ideological and bloodline ancestors of the leadership of the Cistercians is irrelevant to their authenticity. Let's make sure we are careful to keep things separate shall we? My logic in this speculation is sound, but it will either stand or fall under balanced scrutiny, not by dogmatic beliefs, skepticism and bias.
Your mastery of the Internet has created a following for sure, but like a lot of miss-guided ventures, be careful what you wish for. Your attempts to undermine me personally have only hardened my resolve. Perhaps you should rethink your strategy and approach; most notably in how you treat people. A bright guy like you could actually be a good positive resource if you were open-minded and could be trusted.
I have to admit to knowing nothing about Jason's "Zoo", red-lining or whatever else goes on over there. I have known Reverend Phil for many years and he is a better man than me when it comes to the human virtues we all wish we had. Phil and I don't agree on religious ideology, but we've both always had a profound love of Lake Superior agates and a mutual resect for each other's life's passions. He is a good man and I would expect nothing less than class and restraint from him. I would hope he receives the same class and restraint on Jason's blog, but I don't think that's the case.
DeleteScott, the Smithsonian geologist isn't publishing on the Tucson artifacts; my discussion of them with her was incidental to her actual work, which is only tangentially related, on another subject altogether.
DeleteI've noticed, Scott, that you have a recurring theme in your responses: Regardless of the point made, the evidence marshaled, or the logic employed, your responses swirl around the theme of "respect." You continuously feel that any challenge to your claims is a form of disrespect to you personally and to all the people ever involved with any of the fringe ideas you explore. Count how many times you insist on respect for yourself, for various Victorian, for fringe theorists, etc.
In 1996 James J. Quilian, the geologist from the U.S. Geological Survey, brought a paleontologist and an archaeologist to examine the Silverbell site. They determined that the strata from which the artifacts were extracted dates back between 10,000 and 2 million years. Therefore, the artifacts could not have been naturally embedded in the layers of rock from which they were extracted, or else we have a temporal paradox in which medieval objects time traveled back to the Pleistocene. If you argue they were buried in that stratum later, and new rock formed over them, then we are back to the issue that the caliche, when made from quick lime and local debris like that found at the old lime kiln near where this stuff was first found, can be fabricated in just hours.
Now, are we to respect their assembled views? Or do we dismiss an entire team of experts as incompetents who can't read stratigraphy?
In other words, how do you decide which people deserve to have their views and character respected, and which are dismissed as incompetent or as conspirators?
Jason,
DeleteNot only have read his work, I've met Don Burgess and examined the artifacts with him. Don is a journalist and I found him to be very bias against the artifacts and completely uninformed about the scientific aspects related to them. I'm surprised you even brought him up and that you'd consider a journalist's opinion as relevant in this matter?
I also have read Quilian's opinion about the age of cliché development, but that was at a different site. These experts probably read the stratigraphy correct wherever they were, but it was a different site so why is that relevant?
Fact; no one who visited the artifact site ever found any evidence of intrusion or planting. Don't you think it would have been readily obvious if 32 artifacts had been planted over such a large area where they were found? It doesn't make sense because it didn't happen.
Face it, the provenance of the Lead Artifacts is a layup and they are obviously genuine no matter how hard you try to deny it. Have you read Thomas W. Bent's 1964 book, "The Tucson Artifacts"? Only 12 copies were made and it isn't available on-line. I plan on getting this book published in 2015. It's an amazing compilation of articles, newspaper accounts, photographs of the site, excavation and the artifacts, as well as the calm, reasoned reflections of a man decades after the events who was right in the middle of it. No reasonable person can consider all this material along with the geological evidence and come away believing it's a hoax. The only "fact" working against the artifacts is they don't fit the established paradigm.
With regard to the "respect" comment; I know you don't respect me and that is your choice. What you do have to respect is the geological work that I have performed, had peer reviewed and then published. What I find disrespectful is you seem to believe you know more about everything in this arena than anyone else; including geology.
In the end, these artifacts are either genuine and they are not. Since the academic process has failed to reach a conclusion accepted by all, then maybe it's time to the professionals take a crack at it. Let's have let the legal process decide their fate based on a controlled presentation of the evidence. In the case of the "Big Three", when the factual evidence is examined, the lawyers on your side will quickly inform you what is admissible and what is not. Keep in mind, there is only one correct answer. What he will tell you if there is no factual evidence to support the wrong conclusion; how could there be?
You up for that Jason?
Your faith in the legal system is touching, Scott, but it cannot establish the truth of your claims since the rules of evidence for admission at trial have no relationship to whether a claim is actually true, only whether it can be presented to a jury. If you asked a jury to vote on the truth of the theory of evolution, a group of randomly selected Americans would reject it more than 50% of the time despite the science.
DeleteIncidentally: Peer-review still doesn't mean what you say it does. Academic peer review involves publishing in a refereed academic journal. Your reports may have been read by other geologists, but that isn't the same as a formal, anonymous academic peer review in an scholarly journal. If you'd like to submit your evidence to one of these journals, I'm happy to get you the contact information.
On the face of it, this Arizona thing smacks of pure arrogance. I will list three things that most be answered by the clown circus, in the complete with proof.
Delete1) The artifacts were supposed to be smeltered by a Mexican laborer (child) with complete knowledge and expertise in the art of antiquity furnace manufacture to create the temperatures required to smelter. The cross weights 62 lbs. How much rock had to be melted to get just that amount and what was his (secret) fuel source.
2) He had to do this in complete secrecy. Unknown to anybody until they were found by Charles Bent.
3) The boy "apparently" was illiterate in Spanish (his native language) but was completely literate in archaic Hebrew or Latin engraved inscriptions, and Roman numerology. He was supposed to have a "love" of language books. Excuse me, but I have a couple of astronomy books and I would be accepted in history as an astronomer........? Really, and archaic Hebrew was one of them...?
___________________________
below is a link involving Mr. David Brody and Ancient America website. This is the first installment article.
http://ancientamerica.com/calalus-775-900-a-d-a-re-examination-of-the-bent-artifacts-part-1/#more-6042
my call -- this Jason guy and his clown circus has a limited life span here. Wiki has even changed its internet footprint on this one. AND that is the first sign that something is changing because now even Wiki is in opposition to him -- go figure -- and note a quote from Wiki
---Bent wrote that a craftsman in the area had recalled the boy----
OK, on the surface what is wrong with this statement and would it be accepted in an American Court of Law as evidence to a "crime". In this case --- lead artifacts which aren't supposed to be there. Today, we would call this "hearsay" and it and the people who would posture such would be dismissed as witnesses.
further reading -- Cyclone Covey (this was huge loss) but Scott has picked up the research -- Thank you
http://www.journalnow.com/news/local/cyclone-covey-longtime-wake-professor-known-for-varied-interests-theories/article_9637a9fa-596d-11e3-92e8-001a4bcf6878.html
further research can be found here
http://www.amazon.com/Byron-Cummings-Dean-Southwest-Archaeology/dp/0816524777/ref=sr_1_sc_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1419709003&sr=1-2-spell&keywords=todd+boswick
Dave,
DeleteJason has been officially kicked off this blog and sent back to the basement. I was willing to allow him a fair shake here like anyone else, but he failed the ethics test. Instead of asking me directly about this 25 year-old lawsuit over an $1,500 agate; he tried to defame me behind my back. In my eyes, blatant cowardice is grounds for ejection.
We have learned something about this exchange with Jason; that when you can't beat the opposition with facts or evidence, then try to attack their credibility. It's the age-old strategy of those on the losing side. It might work elsewhere, but not here.
Let's move on shall we?
I can't wait for Bent's book to be published --- its already on my list of "most desirable".
DeleteKen Feder, mentioned by Colavito, has been labelled a quackademic. He is not a reliable source of information and Colavito knows it.
DeleteWow. Yes, it should be Jason Cultavito.
ReplyDeleteCultavito promotes the idea that his beloved horror fiction writer H. P. Lovecraft, a Nazi lover, racist, and mentally disturbed seclusionist, was the father of the ancient aliens theory. Everyone then copied or plagarized Lovecraft. According to Cultavito huge numbers of Americans believe in ancient aliens. So according to him it's pretty clear that the idea has had a major impact on history.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.chinesediscoveramerica.com/articles/were-the-anasazi-people-buddhists-from-vedic-india/ This episode was incredible. I simply do not understand what those who absolutely refuse to be open-minded about human nature gain from it. As a point of reference, at the time of the Chinese voyages of the Pacific the Anasazi were already in the Four Corners where they were said to have settled in 1500BC only to mysteriously disappear around 1300AD after moving upward into cliffs. It is speculated that drought and over use of resources may have led them to moving-or perhaps even in an attempt to protect themselves. It may also be why other visitors made it bit did not stay due to the inhospitable climate. The link above however, questions the architecture which has identical techniques in rock carving with Ancient China. I don't think there is any disputing that it is possible they and many could have sailed to North America.All one has to do is look at the cliff dwellings of the Anasazi and other native inhabitants to know that it is simply not true to continue to claim Columbus is the founder of America. Kudos to you Scott for bringing us insight into a history many of us are never introduced to by the status quo. I wish you could do a two hour special on the Chinese voyages and expand on these architectural similarities.
ReplyDeleteOK guys; let's not lower ourselves and start calling Jason names. I need to remember that to; so please use his and anyone else we address by their proper last name.
ReplyDeleteScott,
ReplyDeleteI just don't understand why you continue to respond to Mr. Colavito's posts. You intelligently defend your show's content, guests, and bloggers but we all know he will never be satisfied. Why give him the satisfaction? Your show is clearly popular. You are obviously thick-skinned and you defend yourself in a professional manner. I understand your reasoning for posting blogs that support/defend your findings as well as those that offer constructive criticism, and there are some posts that do offer constructive criticism that only offer to keep points in proper balance. But not Mr. Colavito. He clearly has an agenda and seemingly a strange desire to tarnish your research and reputation. Come on already....enough is enough. I understand that it's your blog and your choice but some of the stuff that this man writes is borderline obnoxious and frankly I think beneath you to respond.
P.S. I have posted prior comments here under my real name but have chosen anonymity for this post only because, unlike you, I am not so thick-skinned.
P.P.S Looking forward to another great episode tonight!
Supporter,
ReplyDeleteI definitely understand where you're coming from and you're right. However, I have my own agenda beyond defending my reputation and the work I've done. I give Jason credit for venturing over here which smells a little bit like desperation. If things were going so well why would he bother?
His attempts to tarnish me and my reputation has had the opposite effect and serves to show that the "old ways" of some segments of academia don't work anymore. The advent of the Internet and instant communication has changed the rules. People in general are smarter and don't buy into the negativity. We have all seen so much hypocrisy, greed, and corruption on the part of so many of our so-called public servants that we're tired of it. We've seen the character assassination and distortion of the truth so many times by many of those in power it's to the point we all just assume its what's going on all the time.
In light of all this, is it really a shock to believe that some sectors of academia and the Smithsonian Institution have not been totally forthcoming and truthful? That the academic process has sometimes failed to reach the proper conclusions and then fallen victim to covering up their mistakes to avoid having to admit to them? I think we all know the answer.
In this arena, Jason represents that entity who is mean, arrogant and distrustful. I've always believed you stand up to a bully and if you stay true to your convictions, the bully will eventually run away. On the other hand, I've also seen some of the bullies have a change of heart and decide that instead of being the source of conflict, they chose to be part of that solution. In football, you want to beat the tough, smart, mean players more than anything. Better yet, you want them on YOUR side.
We've got an extra helmet and shoulder pads if Jason wants to play on our squad.
P.S. Tonight's episode is a good one and you're going to see a new artifact that is really incredible.
I posted here, Scott, because you said skeptics were too afraid of you to do so. I'm not, so I did. That said, I feel compelled to let you know that the "desperation" you sense isn't coming from me. In terms of public interest, visitors to my site looking for information on "Search for the Lost Giants" have outnumbered those looking for information on your show almost 2:1 this season. But if you think that I am somehow a bully for reviewing your show on a blog (as I do three other cable shows and a plethora of books), while you use a cable television platform broadcast to around a million weekly viewers to repeatedly assert that academia is dishonest and actively creating disinformation, you seem a bit confused. You might recall that I am not the one that had his network threaten to sue me, or who wrote on this very blog that he was looking into new ways to sue me. That type of behavior is "mean, arrogant and distrustful," especially for a public figure opining on matters of public importance.
DeleteYou're really losing your grip now Jason; I understand that you have posted a blog on your site about the $1,500 lawsuit over an agate I was involved in 25 years ago. Do you really think I tried to defraud a man who had been collecting agates from around the world for twice as long as I had been alive?
DeleteAlbert Peterson initiated the deal with me out of greed, not telling me he had a third party wanting to buy big agates from him. When rejected by that third party, he panicked, claimed fraud and then filed a lawsuit in his home town. After all the testimony, the judge was totally confused and told us to undo the deal. When I tried to give the agate back, Albert refused to take it. Tell me Jason, who tried to defraud who?
The truth is you are the fraud by having to resort to digging up anything and everything you can to try and discredit those you can't defeat with intellect, logic or factual evidence. You are pathetic.
For the record Jason, I have never tried to sue you nor did I have anything to do with the demands made on you by the network. They knew what you did was wrong and that you were forced to acquiesce proved they were right. It now time for you to go back to the basement and think up more of your nasty drivel which only inspires me.
Goodbye and good riddance.
I have in the past frequented Mr. Colavito's site and he used to provide an informative and interesting counterweight to some of Scott's theories as to early visitors to North America, various conspiracies and so forth. However in the last year or so his attitude has changed perceptibly to being condescending and at times outright arrogant to those who might disagree with him. Further he seems not to realize that his entire 'career' rests largely on commenting on Scott's work and thus he is acting as little more than a pilot fish to a much larger and greater project.
ReplyDeleteDespite this Mr. Colavito and his acolytes have not hesitated to call any differing viewpoint racist, sexist, misogynistic, myopic, xenophobic, homophobic and just about everything else from the classic liberal playbook that might stifle debate and crush innovation at an academic level. It is sad to see subjects of genuine academic interest reduced to shabby marxist politics, personal insults and rude comments from people far less experienced and poorer qualified than Scott.
Keep up the good work Scott and don't let the cynics stop you from postulating new and interesting theories!
Scott,
ReplyDeleteOnce again, you've made a sound argument. Your candor is appreciated.
from my posting above---
ReplyDelete...2) Capt. Megellan - voyage from 1519-1522...
people are going to have to analysis the dates here. Below is a website from the World Digital Library. Its free so have at it.
You will notice the dates. But first this is from the "paradigm" picture and after reading it, you will just have to chuckle. Anyway, on with this.....
....They asked Ricci to translate the map into Chinese, which then was engraved and printed in 1584.....
As the reference states, no known copies exist to date. So how did Ricci get his information if Magellan never went the there and just who was the explorer who put the west coast of the N.A. continent on the map. The second thing is the "Bering Strait".
http://www.wdl.org/en/item/4136/
...In 1648 Semyon Dezhnyov probably passed through the strait, but his report did not reach Europe...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bering_Strait (sorry, I'm using Wiki).
something wrong with the dates here, right..... .
Sir, I think you should consider the DNA haplogroups of the Native Americans and the Chinese. The Chinese migration to America most likely happened by foot via the Bering Straight well before any European explorer. Genotyping human DNA makes distinguishing between Chinese and Native Americans difficult.
ReplyDeleteMaybe you or Scott can enlighten me, but are you talking about a different later wave than what eventually became the Native Americans, but still through the same migration path (Bering Land Bridge) if not, wouldn't they essentially just be Native Americans and not a subsequent settlement? Or are we talking sailing across the Bering Strait after the water level rose?
DeleteH2 is airing a repeat of the East Bay Wall. This episode is even better the second time around.
ReplyDeleteHi Scott;
ReplyDeleteI've been watching America Unearthed since Season 1. While I don't ascribe to a lot of your theories, I like to keep an open mind. I read Jason C.'s blog regularly as well and I appreciate his perspective on the subjects covered. I find myself, in a weird way, a fan of both of you. Like I said, I like to keep an open mind but while I'm not a trained scientist I was taught young to appreciate the scientific method and I feel in large part that if one plans to overturn conventionally believed history, you need to have an iron clad case for your hypothesis. That said, I appreciate you asking the questions you ask and challenging the status quo, failing to challenge the conventional wisdom leads to stagnation, however on the flip side, sometimes the status quo achieved that status because it's the closest to the truth we can reach with the evidence at hand. Either way, I've learned a lot from watching your show by it stimulating me to research further in areas I hadn't thought to look into before and draw my own conclusions.
I liked this episode in part because it was back to the America Unearthed I know and love. I know you don't have control over the show, but these limp wristed 'treasure hunter' episodes are boring and I've watched you long enough to know when your heart is genuinely into the subject matter. I also know all 'reality' TV has an element of scripting, but you're not an actor and it just comes off really cheesy. The producers need to let you be yourself and re-capture the magic of season 1.
Lastly, I appreciate you indulging the 'skeptics' on your blog (I myself fall into that camp on a lot of claims from your show) but I wish there was a lot less personal animosity on both sides.
Jason,
DeleteI can appreciate the allure of reading both blogs, but after the exchanges with the other Jason this past week I now have a better understanding of how his mind works and I don't care for it at all. His underhanded nastiness is a real turnoff and it will ultimately be his undoing. He is an intelligent guy, but he needs to more objective and he's arguments would be more effective if he had even a hint of humility and acknowledge when a valid point was made. This is why I've repeatedly said he's not a serous and credible person. For those reasons and he's unnecessary personal attacks, he's done posting over here.
The treasure hunts aren't my favorite, but they do allow us to present different aspects of history in different ways. Giving a treasure hunt a go once in a while is actually a lot of fun, but I thought it was too much to run all four we did this season in the first six episodes. It gave people the impression we had turned into a treasure hunting show which is definitely not the case.
Skeptics are always welcome is they exhibit minimal courteousness and respect for the readers and me. I'm pretty thick-skinned as one poster noted, but if you show a complete lack of respect it has the opposite effect of their intention.
Glad you're enjoying the show and fire away if something doesn't sit right with you.
You are right on the money that DNA will answer a lot of questions about who was where when. As the technology progresses, surprising new discoveries are sure to come. Really looking forward to that.
ReplyDeleteWhat I find most troubling about your theories is how you cherry pick things that come from British Israelisim. Like the Tara stuff in the Ark episode.
ReplyDeleteJared,
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure I understand what you're talking about? There are well documented stories about the Ark having been at the Hill of Tara. I thought it was responsible to look into and to share some interesting Irish history while we were there.
you did not include the proper context and origin of those stories
ReplyDeleteJared,
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure that I agree with you.
Of course you wouldn't
ReplyDeleteHello Scott,
ReplyDeleteI found the Bay Area Rock wall episode very interesting since I was born and raised in the Bay Area. After watching the show I did a bit of research and found that similar walls at Mount Diablo and in Milpitas, California where it was said that some parts of the walls reach 5 to 6 feet in height. Did you investigate these areas also? I truly and sincerely appreciate America Unearthed and watching your show rekindled my interest in history and the unexplained. It's amazing to me to see unexplained mysteries here in the US and especially in the Bay Area.
Hi Peter,
DeleteIt turns out there are mysterious walls all across the US and I have seen many of them on the East Coast. I've heard from other people about the Mount Diablo and Milpitas walls, but haven't seen them. I still think the local native tribes in the various areas are the best place to start researching. Unfortunately, many of the tribes have lost the oral stories about the origin of the walls. A thorough investigation with the tribes has not been attempted, but I'll bet it would bear fruit.
Hi Scott! I'm a new here, but I really enjoyed this post. I love engaging in big theoretical ideas with intelligent people, it is definitely satisfying for me.
ReplyDeleteI had to fume silently while reading the back and forth between you and J.C. It seemed like you were unaware that he is a charlatan and a skeptic with a proclivity for straw man arguments. I guess you need to prepare yourself for years of him blogging against your show...fun times.
Again, great job, ignore the haters and keep up the awesome work!
Elizabeth,
ReplyDeleteI know exactly where Jason is coming from, but as long as he doesn't cross any legal lines he's free to express himself just as I am free to do the same. I think the controversy he generates creates more interest. People aren't stupid, they can decide for themselves where the truth is.
Anyone and everyone is welcome to try and punch me out here anytime they want. The vast majority are reasoned and respectful. The few that are not we can handle. The subject matter here can be controversial so you have to expect some pushback.
Thanks for posting and fire away with any questions you might have.
I would actually love to engage in intellectual discourse with J.C. but I am afraid that he would treat my olive branch as a chew toy and devour any goodwill I might have like a rabid dog. So kudos to you.
DeleteAnyway, thanks for your reply, I really appreciate it. I am currently reading Charles Leland's translation of Hoei-Shin's narrative, so the timing for this discussion is right on for me. It is fascinating to think that the Chinese could have been in the America's 1000 years before Columbus.
I guess my question would be, what is something interesting that you had wished would have been included in the show that wasn't?
Elizabeth,
DeleteThe whole early Chinese coming to America story is new subject matter for me so I don't know what else I would have liked to see included. Having said that, there are always things I'd like to see different. Hindsight is like that, but overall I'm very happy with the final edits and with how both me and my guests are portrayed. We've only had a couple guests get upset with their portrayal. To be honest, it was their own fault they came off looking silly.
Hi Scott,
DeleteI share your sentiments! This is what makes the story so fascinating, because it is new to almost everyone who learned their history in US classrooms via textbooks.
In my research, especially with the book I mentioned, but definitely in other places that confirm as well, there are reports of evidence that suggests Chinese and Japanese influence not just in America but all the way down to Peru to the time of the Inca people.
Thanks so much for your responses to me! I really appreciate it.
Jared -- your exchange here set off a few bells.
ReplyDeleteI did find this site. Perhaps you could comment on it. They have, what looks like an interesting book. Do you know of or read the text. I would be interested. Scott's shows center on the finding of the ark. It has lead us over many parts of the globe including "Oak Island".
http://www.mythicalireland.com/ancientsites/tara/taratemple.html
http://www.newgrange.com/tara-ark-of-the-covenant.htm
http://www.sacredland.org/hill-of-tara/
Geeze, now I get why some people just turn comments "off" on things they post!
ReplyDeleteYou'd need a couple of Valium to wade through all this.
There's probably a better way for me handle this blog to try and make it less onerous, but this is the first time I've ever managed one so I'm learning as I go. I try to post all comments regardless if they are pro or con to the subject matter we investigate on the show. I only delete blatant or inappropriate advertisements, vulgarity, or obsessive commentary that is overly disrespectful to the readers or me.
ReplyDeleteI've noticed a few people have sent in comments that were not connected any of the blog subjects I've posted. Unfortunately, I can't post their blogs if they come into me that way. I'm going to look into this as I've seen quite a few just today.
Stay tuned and hang in there; I realize many of the posts are not interesting, but there are a lot of pearls in here.
I think you, Scott, may want to consider filtering subsequent responses by posters who want to argue for the sake of arguing. Heck, it's your blog. Do as you see fit. Your willingness to post comments that are for, against, or neutral to your findings/conclusions lends to your open-minded nature. We respect that. But like this latest one, Scales - it was ridiculous. He wasn't interested in the show or debating the evidence, or facts. The fact that he admitted to only watching one episode in near entirety attests to his lack of knowledge of the show and it's content. Eristic seems like a fitting word.
ReplyDeleteGreat episode last night!
Scales was cut off when he tired to continue his obsessive rant. I do try to give everyone a chance to ask legitimate questions and for guys (I presume he's a guy) like Scales (if that is his real name which I doubt), I give more than enough rope to hang themselves.
ReplyDeleteLast night's episodes was one of my favorite's so far.
This is like 5 year old with a dictionary arguing over a piece of candy or no she's my girlfriend not yours lol u would think that people with your guys education that u could stop arguing like a bunch of spoiled children if you did you might get somewhere! !
ReplyDeleteYep....which is why Scott blocked him. Another attempt at raising the bar of constructive conversation. We've beaten a dead horse so let's move on to conversation relater to the show.
DeleteScott, My wife & I both love your program!
ReplyDeleteI know that weather conditions and material could be very different between the similar northen China and the California rock walls, but would it be possible for you to obtain/borrow a sample from the stone used in the Tibetan wall to do a side-by-side comparison of the weathering and rind creation?
Also, we live in the Sacramento area and would love to go visit the CA wall. I saw a graphic on the program that said you left Ed Levin "State" Park. Is this actually the "County" park with the same name, located at:
3100 Calaveras Road, Milpitas, CA?
If so, can you give us details on how to find the wall from there?
Thanks and please continue your very interesting and informative work!
Scott, I enjoy your show. I do not agree 100% with some of your claims, but that is why I find it interesting. I am at least open minded and take your show and blog for what thay are, your opinion. I'm not saying you are wrong, just that I didn't follow some of the logic. In other cases I find the assertions quite valid and with ample support. However the reason for my post is this: Is there any way you can simply not reply / react to those who are obviously trolls trying to cut you down on every tiny little detail and word you post? I would fing you posts much more enjoyable and believable if you stuck with facts, ideas, thoughts, etc and stayed away form the "nonsense". Keep up the good work. Looking foreward to another new episode to watch...
ReplyDeleteWhile I appreciate your comments with regard to the negative bloggers, I feel it is appropriate to engage them to a certain degree. Sometimes people have an awkward way of expressing themselves and often respond well when I engage them. Other times, people are just trying to argumentative and disruptive, and if the exchange becomes unproductive I will terminate their involvement.
DeleteI understand how annoying it is to read some of the nasty stuff, but I don't run from controversy. Often times what comes of as someone being an obvious troll, is simply an awkward request for more information.
It's my job to figure who legitimate and who's not, and try to do it quickly.
He's already banned 2 of them in the past few weeks. Since then, I've found this blog spot to be much more enjoyable and an interesting & educational forum for idea sharing. Think of it this way: if someone posted crap about you, wouldn't you want to defend yourself? If he doesn't post all comments, he's accused of being biased by not posting even the nasty ones. There is a difference between being outright nasty versus critical. Stick with it; it's a worthwhile blog.
ReplyDeleteI'm trying to fair to all concerned and really don't mind critical comments is appropriate. There's line on this blog that only I can draw and I feel I'm being fair as I can in my assessments of when posters step over it.
DeleteScott, I am a fan of the show. I find the work you do very intriguing. With that said I would like your thoughts on what I believe could be an ancient stacked stone structure that would have sat near the banks of the Columbia River in Washington State prior to the damming of the river. I was curious if any of your theories put any ancient people's this far Northwest ? I have a few photos and a interesting surface map if you are interested.
ReplyDeleteThank-You, Brian
Brian,
ReplyDeleteI think the stacked stones should be investigated and why couldn't they represent evidence of an ancient cultures. A proper investigation just might shed light on that question.
With respect, I wish to point out to you, Scott Wolter, something you may not be aware of when you were standing in front of and in the left doorway of monument where The Execution of Jacques De Molay took place after explaing and showing many M symbols all over. Look at the place you were standing and in plain view is a Huge ornate M made of the two doors and pillar lintel across the top. It actually looks like the Latin letter M for 1000 and nicely placed as a relief. Really great documentary on the hooked X and the M for the blood line. Amazing show and gives me much to study. Thanks, Jack Sanders Just saying....
ReplyDeleteJack,
ReplyDeleteNice observation jack; you obviously now have the "eyes to see" and they are working quite well!
Glad you enjoyed the show; and thank you!
in the usa i think normal is just having enough to do all day that no weird stuff enters in to a person's mind like what if the curse of oak island show and the america unearthed show are revealing that the true evil of europe long ago was the roman catholic church and that many innocents were killed to prevent the secret of jesus being a mortal man getting out to people...like in the case of the 2 shows i mentioned the original skull and crossbones flag symbol was the templars naval ships after the royal king of france aided the catholic church in attacking templars in 1307. a treacherous attack in the night while people were in their beds... so modern history made people think skull and crossbones were evil pirates but in the beginning they were people who knew the truth of the ancient lands of Israel....hmm i am learning many things as i review the oak island show...they toured the rennes le chateau church. it has the most unusual sculpture in that ancient church,...the symbols are there for the pirate flag....the skull is there to symbolize the templar knights located the bones of their order's highest king...of old...history channel is helping the world know the truth of ancient orders oppressing mankind.
ReplyDeleteCould you please explain your M theory again in some great detail the background and how you came up with it I just was wondering if it just could be the artist style of painting and sculpting
ReplyDeleteI have a M at my Church the name of the church is Sacred heart at Turlock California I hope you can come and see it .
The statue probably came from Portugal or the Azors island but it probably not over 100 years old
I can believe that many people came to America before Columbus I even the knight tempar came over but it's hard for me to Believe in the bloodline. However I still love your show
m
Kathy,
ReplyDeleteI flesh out the "M" sign theory in detail in my latest book, "Akhenaten to the Founding Fathers: Mysteries of the Hooked X." However, the basic thesis is the secret of the marriage and mystical ministry of Jesus, Mary Magdalene, their children, and bloodline descendants, has been kept alive through symbolism and secret documents. The "M" sign started to appear around 1400 quietly hidden in the artwork of artists of direct bloodline descendants and their supporters.
If you look around with fresh eyes that "see" those supporters and descendants are alive and well to this day.
I just love your Show! Stay on the Trail of the hooked X my Friend!
ReplyDeleteFreedomrik,
DeleteI can assure you I will!
Hi Scott - I am very surprised not to see comments from other readers on the existence of other identical walls elsewhere in California. I am 72 and most of my youth took place in Oakdale CA. Oakdale was a small town a little over 4000 people east of Modesto on highway 92 heading further east to Sonora CA. A few miles before Sonora you would take a road to the right (south) which would take you to Yosemite Valley. From Oakdale as you get into the foothills around Knights Ferry (very tiny, just off the highway) there are walls (or fences) very often visible from the highway. Sometimes right along the road. Asking about these walls as a kid my grandparents thought they were made by the Chinese but that was just a guess. How far they extend I don't know but these are readily visible and actually they look like they are property lines. It is not just one long line. They go around different directions. This whole region is very interesting. In addition to the walls there are obvious signs of a time when central California was a huge inland sea and the water edges are visible on the cliffs. You can see what were shorelines high on the walls. A little further on the cliffs are formed by large walls made of volcanic basalt and probably freed from the soil around them by erosion. Looking, online, at an area between Modesto and Sonora,in the area of Knights Ferry(just off the highway 92) mostly on the south(right) side you can see all of these things. Maybe these will interest you, maybe it's too late. I want to say I enjoy most of your shows. Some, I believe, are getting a little farfetched. Please be careful, don't stretch too far in order to try to build up the episode or try to make it more interesting. I do believe other people have been here( North or South America) before Columbus and even Ericsson. Many of these things should be taught in school even if all is not known. Enough is known that our young people should be aware of it and someday one of them, here and there - sooner or later, some of these mysteries may be solved. What a wonderful idea! Keep up the good work.
ReplyDeleteThanks for your great suggest...
ReplyDeleteGreat Wall of China Facts
Dear Scott,
ReplyDeleteA friend told me the Chinese built huge ships in antiquity. They sailed them all over the world, looking to see what was out there. They found nothing of interest. So they destroyed the massive ships. Since that time they stayed home, up to the modern age. Perhaps you can find references to this.
Sincerely,
Michael Earl Crowell
Scott
ReplyDeleteI think you should give credit to the tipster who informed you of the walls.
PS I think it was me.
David M P*****r
SF, CA
David,
ReplyDeleteI think we did give you proper credit in the show didn't we? I haven't watched the episode since it aired, but I thought you did a fine job.
We appreciate all our tipsters!
You didn't give anyone credit for the tip. You only said "i got a tip" as you were crossing the Golden Gate Bridge. There was no info in the final credits either. Since you didn't give me, (story of my life) or anyone credit,, i have to assume it was me.
ReplyDeleteI love your show, but am saddened every time i watch it because of the probable missing credit.
David
I can forward you the original e-mail "tip" if you like.
David,
DeleteI sent a note to the production company yesterday and they informed me their staff received over a dozen tips about the stone walls in California. I’m not sure why they picked the person they did to be on the show, but I rarely have input into those decisions. In any case, I understand how you feel and am sorry it didn’t work out the way you hoped.
Thanks for sending me a note so we could clarify the situation.
Hello Scott,
ReplyDeleteIn some dry areas people build stone walls to protect crops from sunlight. It is something called a "Talus Garland" effect. There is usually a tree (or trees) providing shade to these walls however if the walls as that old, the trees in question could easily have been harvested hundreds of years ago for building material.
These stone piles cool in the night air and when the warm daytime air hits the rock it condenses and drips down into the rock pile, watering whatever plants you have nearby. Under the rocks, people may have also placed pottery containers to collect water for their own use. Those long walls covering several miles could have supplied travelers crossing long distances with a sure source of drinking water.
In some of the pictures, you see these walls on hills, these could have had the doubled feature of preventing rain water going downhill, preserving moisture in some areas for growth of crops and pools of drinking water.
The Inca used mountains as a watering systems digging channels in the rock to direct rain water to irrigated platforms. The wall builders may have a similar goal in mind but a different way of doing this.
http://permaculturenews.org/2009/11/02/rethinking-water-a-permaculture-tour-of-the-inland-northwest/
Hi Scott, Im a Northern Californian and in the foothill in Northern CA there are smaller rock walls all over the foothills and Yuba Sutter Buttes. My dad always told me they were built by Chinese during the gold rush.
ReplyDeleteGreg
Scott, I follow your show a lot. I read an article about 10 years ago that said that after the railroads, a Chinese general hired any Chinese that would work to make those walls I can't find that article any more, but, I'm sure that that's the way it happened
ReplyDeleteClark,
DeleteIf you can find the article I'll be happy to post it. Until then, it remains a mystery as to who, and most importantly in my view why?
Scott, Oh my. I only made it about 75% of the way through the comments - let me rephrase - the arguments and repeated points. It reminded me of people asking the same question over and over hoping for a different response if asked enough. The answers aren’t changing. You have not declared concrete proof - yet. I for one, as a fellow educated person, appreciate the questions your research incites and how it makes one want to delve deeper and discover more hidden clues and answers! It appears that is the purpose of this show (please correct me if inaccurate), thereby effectively refuting all claims that you are making inaccurate assertions. Nowhere have I seen that you are stating this is a fact. You have repeatedly answered in the same way and reiterated your position that more research is needed. The more you found, the more you reiterated that more research and confirmation is needed. I understand and appreciate your willingness to engage and reply to all; however, please consider somehow making threads or something so we don’t all have to wade through the BS to find the quality conversation. Keep up the great job making us all think! Thank you!!
ReplyDelete