Scott Wolter Has Agreed To Participate In My Class

9/11/2015

Scott Wolter, author and host of "America Unearthed" (photo from http://www.history.com/shows/america-unearthed/cast/scott-wolter)

A few days ago, I made an open offer to "fringe" prehistorians to participate in a class I am planning on teaching next fall. I'm happy to report that Scott Wolter contacted me to take me up on the opportunity:

Hi Andy,

I’m one of those “Fringe” people you are talking about and would be happy to address your students if the offer still stands. I’m serious if you’d like to set something up; I’m sure all would learn a great deal from the exchange.

Regards,
Scott F. Wolter P.G.

That's a win. Wolter was the host of the program American Unearthed (which ran for three seasons on H2) and has written multiple books about pre-Columbian connections between the Old World and the New World. He is perhaps best known for his defense of the Kensington Rune Stone as an authentic ancient artifact and his ideas about the journeys and activities of the Knights Templar. He has recently written on his blog about a purported "Hooked X" symbol that he argues may link the biblical Jesus to the Freemasons and various North American rune stones. According to Jason Colavito, Wolter will appear in an upcoming program titled Pirate Treasure of the Knights Templar.

I've seen most episodes of America Unearthed but I haven't yet read any of Wolter's books. I will have his commitment to speak to my class in mind when I prepare my syllabus, however, and I'll be sure to have the students read up on his ideas before his presentation. I don't yet know exactly what he'll talk about - that will be up to him but known ahead of time.

I'm glad that Wolter accepted my offer and contacted me, and I hope some others do the same. I'm just beginning the process of getting things organized (it will be a new course, so there are hoops to navigate to get it approved and on the books), so now would be a great time to step up to the plate. I would love to have someone come in and make a case for pre-Ice Age civilization, ancient astronauts, giants, etc. Send me an email: aawhite@mailbox.sc.edu.

There are a lot of people teaching these kinds of courses now, but I plan on doing it a little differently. We're going to do it my way: we're going to engage, we're going to ask tough questions, and we're going to listen to the answers. We're going to examine logic, evidence, and the histories and implications of ideas. We're going to kick the doors down, and we're going to have a lot of fun doing it. Stay tuned.

16 Comments

busterggi (Bob Jase)

9/11/2015 11:51:51 am

Don't be surprised if he demands a table outside the classroom where his books and tee-shirts with a hooked x on them are for sale.

Jo Lorichon

9/11/2015 12:04:25 pm

I am on the Board of the Ancient Artifact Preservation Society based in the Upper Penisula, Copper Country of Michigan. Scott has been a speaker at our annual conferences and has always made contributions to our understanding of the past. He has taught our attendees on subjects from ancient Nicaraguan statuary to the latest tools used to magnify and confirm content and compostition of artifacts, metals, and stone. He is an asset.

David L Ulrich

9/11/2015 02:18:01 pm

Thank you for posting, Jo. If I got the right Jo as a professional attached to Finlandia University • 601 Quincy Street • Hancock, MI 49930. I would think that Professor White would really like to raise the standards of people posting here. This shows recognition of the work being done.

I would also think that Prof. White would like to have contributions from academics on par with himself to contribute to this forum.

Jennifer

9/11/2015 03:01:19 pm

This sounds like a great course! I'd love to chat sometime about how you/your students approach engagement.

Don Spohn

9/11/2015 04:56:12 pm

Scott is a good speaker and he might come up with something you can agree upon, but there is much that you won't agree upon.

Andy White

9/11/2015 07:47:06 pm

That's fine. It's not about what I think, but about teaching students to evaluate claims based on logic and evidence. Not all claims about the past are equally credible, so how do we discriminate among them? Where does the burden of proof lie, and what actually constitutes "proof"? So-called "fringe" ideas are not necessarily wrong, but they can certainly be evaluated in the same arena as mainstream ideas.

Joe Scales

10/21/2015 10:51:08 am

Hello Professor White. You may want to be on the lookout for Wolter's favorite fallacies, including, but not limited to:

Confirmation Bias
Proof by Assertion
Proof by Ignorance
Ad Hominem
Strawman
Begging the Question
Circular Reasoning
False Dichotomy

It is rare he argues without committing to them, and he refuses to recognize his logical errors when confronted with them. It is also important to note that absolutely none of his "scientific" conclusions for his fringe history work have been peer reviewed (a process of which he has expressed considerable disdain).

9/12/2015 08:17:05 am

I find this very exciting and hope it actually comes to fruition. As an amateur historian (amateur with a capital "A"), I can assure that there are many things in the local historical records of this country that do not align with today's accepted archaeological views. Many of these things were thrown out and cast aside in a time when the technologies that we have now were either in their infancy or didn't exist at all. This notion, sweeping the Internet today, that it is unreasonable or unintelligent for people to feel like some of these things deserve a second look seems well, unreasonable. It's like a breath of fresh air to see two people from opposite ends of the spectrum organizing a good old fashioned debate and interacting politely and respectfully with one another instead of the typical obnoxious name calling and character assassination that goes on in other places around the Internet. It is for these reasons that I will continue to visit this blog. There is real work going on here and this seems like real progress.

brett allen

9/25/2015 12:53:53 am

Wolter erroneously, I believe, claimed the megalithic rock wall in Rockwall Texas (a 30 ft. high feldspar granite wall covering an incredible 20 sq. miles) was sadly, natural geology. Ignoring the fact that feldspar is not indigenous to the area. Wolter also failed to examine other available artifacts, and concluded that although it certainly looked like a wall, and was buried under 30ft. of earth in some spots, it was not built by men...because as everyone knows men simply did not exist then! Sadly, Wolter based his decision on the fact that the blocks demonstrated a similar alignment of their magnetic fields, as a natural feature should as the rock was all made at the same time.” It did. But Wolter further explained that the only exception could be if a pole shift had occurred in the distant pass after it was made... and we all know man did not exist that far back in time! So, seemingly oblivious to the a wealth of OOPARTS around the world speaking to the contrary, including many "myths" around the world of just such an event, Wolter concluded.... “If it’s a man-made feature, as they put the blocks in, they would be rotated them... and they would not line up... the arrows should be random going in all directions.” They were not. So Wolter claimed it could only be natural geology... and because this was “serious” Science, no one in authority was allowed to know the results until the show aired later that year. And... Wolter did not even conduct the tests himself! Instead he merely observed the work of Dr. John Giessman, a UT-Dallas Geologis. Then as the big finale, greatly impacting the town's tourist income. Oddly, Giessman has devoted his career to advocating the importance of good Science.
As an expert, Wolter was blissfully unaware of the many myths worldwide of a day when the Earth stopped turning; an event many indigenous peoples claim was the very basis for the Swastika symbol Hitler later appropriated. During the show, Wolter also used extreme circular logic to come to the conclusion that the wall's magnetic alignment could not have been changed in a Pole Shift, because as all academia knows, no men capable of building it existed before the last Pole Shift! Such logic is extremely dangerous and has surely thwarted what might have been many important Scientific advances. Circular Logic has no place in any debate
But even more sad is the fact that when it comes to subjects of "the paranormal" or "pseudo science" such logic seems acceptably close-minded and routinely passable in today's academia. Another case in point:
A similar "debunking" of the Mayan Crystal Skulls was performed by Conservative Scientist Margaret Sax of the British Museum when she claimed the Skulls could not be 'real" because like the wall, no power tools existed at that time to make them. Wow, someone loosen those brain constraints. Lastly, it's been charged by a blogger named Jason Colavito, that Wolter's Forensic Geology degree (a BA?) is simply Honorary (although I personally can not attest to such an assertion). But Jason claims he did a thorough investigation. Regardless, the article can be easily accessed.
I believe higher learning institutions in this country are crying out for a major change in zeitgeist, and shows like Ancient Aliens may have a great impact in ten years... as witnessed by the popularity of today's "Paranormal" and "pseudoscience" programming. How could anyone argue against the idea that the first class anyone pursuing fields like Archaeology, or Anthropology should be required to take... is a mandatory class on OOPARTS - artifacts known as "Out of Place Artifacts", represent a growing field of finds that fall outside of, or even shatter, accepted theories of Science! How can Science advance or even thrive when its big thinkers can't think outside the box? All too often too many have belittled fields of research employing the exact same superstitious assumptions they accuse others of?? What am I talking about??
Is it not only bad Science, but Science completely antithetical to true Scientific tenets. How can a subject that has paralleled man's existence since record-keeping began, become a subject completely discredited or labeled "pseudoscience" by those considering themselves the world's elite academics? Without even a cursory round of Scientific investigation how can such claims be made??
That's right, although academia recoils at such subjects like "Paranormal Investigation", "Bigfoot" or "UFOs", do any of these great minds ever stop to consider that such fields have NEVER, never, fallen under the true weight of Scientific investigation? It is this meritless denial of the Human Condition that has resulted in the contemporary explosion of "homegrown" Science groups; groups who, like it or not, are turning out some amazing evidence... discoveries that are routinely being ignored or discredited. I implore you, vehemently, please consider t

Andy White

9/25/2015 02:41:43 pm

Thanks for the comment. There is a lot here, and I won't pretend to be able to address it all in a comment. And I won't presume to speak for Scott Wolter - he's welcome to chime in here if he wants to. I will say that I remember the "Great Wall of Texas" episode of America Unearthed to be relatively reasonable in its approach to systematically discriminating between the two ideas about about the origin of the "wall" (i.e.whether it was a natural or cultural feature).

Science doesn't prohibit thinking "outside the box," but it does require the presence of a mechanism for evaluating an idea based on evidence.

Joe Scales

10/21/2015 09:25:11 pm

Wolter does have a BS in Geology. Where he was uncovered fluffing his credentials was when he claimed he had an honorary masters degree, which was not the case.

The first episode of America Unearthed I watched was his Medieval Desert Mystery where he found some runes carved in Arizona that he linked to a twelfth century Englishman and concluded that said Englishman must have taught the Native Americans there how to build cliff dwellings. I couldn't believe someone so prone to fallacy would be given a television show and be allowed to make such outlandish and asinine claims under the guise of seeking "true" history of America on a channel that purported to be educational. Though the entire episode was ridiculous on its face, I did find it rather amusing that a couple years later, Professor Henrik Williams would take Wolter to task on the conclusions reached for this episode and took it apart piece by piece and in doing so, actually solved the "mystery". Will Wolter admit his obvious errors in fact, judgment and reason? Of course not. Fringe theorists do not go back. They only go forward into more bizarre terrain.

For Professor Williams' rebuttal for this episode, see here:

http://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/the-vikings-of-noman-s-land-island

Joe Scales link

10/21/2015 09:29:49 pm

Sorry, wrong link above. Try this:

http://files.webb.uu.se/uploader/267/Mustang%20Mountain%20Stone%20-%20release.pdf

Scott Wolter link

11/11/2015 01:19:32 pm

Joe,

First, I was given an informal honorary Master's by my professors, it was not officially given by the university. The debunker you have relied on for your source deliberately misrepresented my degree and you have accepted it. The reason is obvious based on the hostile tone of your post.

With regard to Williams' claim the Mustang Mountain runic inscription might be modern; he may be right. He might also be wrong. If he were right, it would be consistent with the fact that I have consistently said the inscription shows no evidence of weathering or accumulation of secondary deposits within the grooves. Further, the site showed clear evidence of the inscription being buried, perhaps after it was carved, which could explain the lack of weathering and that it could indeed be old.

Unfortunately, Professor Williams' has repeatedly demonstrated a lack of respect for the geological weathering work, performed by myself and others, on the Kensington and Narragansett Rune Stones and chosen to render opinions about these artifacts based only on his erroneous opinion the Hooked X symbol is modern. This claim was made despite numerous examples known to exist dating back two millennia. The question is, why?

I will reserve final judgment about his opinion on the Mustang Mountain inscription until his work is properly vetted. However, my opinion on that runic inscription has been, and still is, there isn't enough evidence to draw a definitive conclusion.

Sometimes the answer to these mysterious artifacts is "I don't know."

Joe Scales

11/13/2015 12:34:40 pm

I've read your explanation for what you now claim to be an "informal" honorary masters degree, yet the quoted distinction did not appear in your professional qualifications that you yourself had previously publicized, correct? I mean, this didn't just come out of nowhere. Are you claiming now that having such an honorary degree never appeared in any of your credentials, CV or company/business profiles at any point in time?

As for the Mustang Mountain inscription, you made some incredibly conclusive remarks on your television show in reaearching the origin of the inscription as well as how you considered it as evidence of European exploration of Arizona in the twelfth century. You also claimed a lack of weathering was due to it being buried, as it didn't seem to be a red flag for you as being modern in nature. Is there anything particular in Professor William's analysis that you care to dispute? That was actually the first episode of your television show that I watched. If you recall, it was the subject of debate I had with you when I provided a rather lengthy list of logical fallacies contained within your arguments when I initially posted to your blog.

I do know your distaste for Mr. Colavito and his reviews of your show, but did you catch this one:

http://archyfantasies.com/2014/09/23/a-12th-century-englishman-in-arizona-unearthed-america-episode-2/

I've only recently found it myself. Logic, or lack of same, doesn't seem to be the only problem. Care to comment?

Lucius Cincinnatus

1/2/2019 08:04:45 pm

The attacks regarding his “honorary masters”/lack of are at best petty & fallacious. In the midst of researching unrelated matters was promoted to find info on Scott & his work and have noticed the internet is flooded with pretentious wannabe scholars emphasizing the Honorary Masters as the lynchpin of their opposition to him/his work. — and do so with out providing any substantial context to the saga.
An honorary degree alone obviously does not add any significant credence to one’s positions (assuming the audience be bright young scholars) yet the perpetuation of a vague claim that one allegedly misrepresented an honorary distinction warrants the automatic and absolute disqualification of any of his finding that are at odds with mainstream academia?
That ain’t right, but then again I didn’t care much about spending time to worry about grammar on this blogpost, so that will likely invalidate anything I’ve said if it’s at odds with all the genius undergrads at SC.

http://scottwolteranswers.blogspot.com/2014/09/so-what-about-that-apparently-non.html?m=1

Kathy

8/8/2018 09:42:49 am

Hi, I just wanted to make a comment on the crystal skulls. I am no expert, but have seen on a couple shows where at least one of the skulls has modern tool marks, and they showed magnified images clearly showing them.

Scott Wolter Has Agreed To Participate In My Class

Leave a Reply.

Archives

Categories