Richard nwamba african

News | NIST

Posted: 2017-09-11 10:26

Funny you mentioned how the Anishinaabe pushed out the Sioux, I censored myself on that post as I also asked if our present treaties with the Canadian immigrants and newest residents of the land now called America, would hold up since the Norse were here before the Cree and the Canadian Anishinaabe/Algonquin Peoples. Kinda like the $67 dollars in beads, they were the wrong tribe to have the authority,as they were just passing through. so of course they said sure and actually got what turned out to be a good deal.

PS I was walking by your place last week and entertained an offer on your house for 67 Elvis extended plays in mint shape. The records sound excellent, give them 85 days before evicting them would you? Thanks!

Holes Q&A | Emma's Blog

It's a little sad to see someone hammered like this for what I think is a minor fib. When I was a kid I enjoyed reading 'Chariots of the Gods' and 'The Bermuda Triangle'. Even at the time I doubted them but I enjoyed them all the same. I still get a kick out of the odd documentary on those topics. Its fun to fantasize. Many of the topics Scott brings up i've never heard of. Some or all of these things may be hoaxes but, if hoaxes, they began, sometimes, hundreds of years ago. That's fascinating. Its history of a different sort. So I wish everyone would leave Scott alone. We need more like him. Inspire and fire our imaginations and the imaginations of our children. Get out, get your hands dirty and away from those horrid video games, and unearth your own mysteries before its too late - before you grow up and have all of life's mysteries beaten out of you. More power to you Scott. Keep on doing it.


Fact is 95% of American history is either exaggerated , mixed truth and sometimes just plain lies. Anyone who has any experience dealing with those we call professional in the field we refer to as history would know this. History is not always based on fact, its based on who has the most convincing idea about what happened. Scott Wolter is simply weighing some of those stories to see how much sense they make and then giving an opinion on what he thinks. Before you judge him maybe you need to do a investigation of equal time and effort of your own? or what right do you have to say anything against his opinion? Rather than sitting behind that screen all day searching for faults in others to make yourself feel better about your own. Im not a psychologist but its been y experience that those who seek out others problems to expose them have enough of their own to keep them busy.

Le Live Marseille : aller dans les plus grandes soirées

It is one thing to say you have sold a lot of books one amazon, which Jason probably has, and quite another to claim academic credentials, especially when you are using those credentials to give your vague theories about knights templar, freemasons, etc some credence. Now, would you propose that anything Jason has said in the body of his article above or in any of the reviews about AU are factually incorrect? (Obviously that would require you reading them which you probably cannot be bothered to do)

Scott Wolter's Apparently Non-Existent Degree - Jason Colavito

So. When you have reviewed -- and REJECTED -- a paper submitted for peer review prior to publication. Does that *rejection* then mean that EVERYTHING done by, and submitted by, THAT author/researcher is now entirely JUNK. ???

Isn't the ESSENCE of "truth" seeking to take information and claims and ideas and proposals AS THEY ARE for review and examination no matter WHO offers or proposes. ???

A little long, but some valid points.
It is obvious that some of the posters over the last year are not just rabid morons. The length of time some have put into this indicates they have more than just a passing interest in fending off Wolter detractors. Otherwise, there are some real questions about their need to find friends and get in touch with the real world.
Whether these individuals are hired internet hit men or friends of Wolter is undeterminable, but it definitely seems organized and focused.
Scott L does seem a little rabid at times. His pettiness indicates he does not understand the that an argument should be philosophical in nature and based on logic. Ultimately this does not help whoever is paying him, or his friend Wolter, whichever the case may be.

I'm sorry that you can't control yourself and that you must resort to personal attacks because you can't understand what I'm saying. I'm also sorry that you think that a compromised sample can still provide you with confidence in an age determination. I'm also sorry that you think a TV show that's only half in English is equivalent to a peer-reviewed study. And I'm sorry that you have such confidence in an alleged dating method that has never been put before experts in dating before it was published in a popular book. I'm also sorry that you think science is done that way. And of course, I'm sorry that you just don't care that referring me somewhere else is equivalent to answering my questions. Oh, and I'm sorry that your take on what constitutes science is no better than what the creationists, the UFOlogists, the Bigfoot believers, the alternative medicine believers, the conspiracy buffs, etc. call science. Other than all of that, you're doing just fine. Have fun with your personal attacks-in-lieu-of-science belief system. Toodles.

Ten bucks says Cory is a fox news watcher. How else can you explain the low information threshold he has for determining facts, and then can only regurgitate the canned "skeptic" response when called. That comes from someone who has been programmed to lash out at people who dare to ask questions about things they accept as true. Jason has not lashed out here. He has asked questions, thoughtfully researched the topics, and pointed out inaccuracies and even dishonesty. Maybe you disagree, but at least HE has presented peer reviewed accepted knowledge to back his claims of inaccuracy. Wolter didn't do any such thing. If there was, we wouldnt be reading this right now.

Constance, sometimes it is a good idea to recognize that an idea is wrong. The flat earth is just one example. I would guess that even you have closed your mind to that idea. Maybe "closing the mind" means assigning it an extremely low probability of being true, because accepted dogma could someday be overturned. So in the case of the flat earth, it's extremely unlikely to be true. So it is with Wolter's use of divining rods to locate a supposed "lost treasure." In his show, he refers to divining rods as "controversial," when in fact they have been debunked. And on Wolter's show, they again fail. And look at how much time and money he wasted based on what the divining rods "told" him. So if kids see this, they'll think divining rods are a legit tool of science. Pseudo-science is bad for kids. And bad for adults.

Thanks for the reply. I checked out your review. Spot on in my opinion, and saved me a lot of work figuring out Google earth.

(I did happen to notice that Albany, NY is directly aligned with Edinburgh, my place of birth. Edinburgh has been called the Athens of the North. Albany is named after the Duke of Albany an alleged Freemason, the future James VII of Scotland &ndash the home of the Picts. Could it be that me landing on this site was pre-destined due to this Greco/Picto/North America connection?)

Seriously - what is really sad to me is that I had assumed the History Channel had some integrity &ndash how wrong could I be?

What do you consider "recently"? Fifteen years is a long time. The Clovis-first hypothesis was not sacrosanct it wasn't even that old. It lasted a few decades in the twentieth century (c. 6965-7555) when it fit the best available evidence. (Clovis points were discovered in the 6975s, but Clovis-first was proposed much later, with the now-discredited "Man the Hunter" theory.) Then, when new evidence emerged, the paradigm shifted.

If scientific ideas about America's oldest cultures changed at least three times in the past century, I can't see how that's "hidebound" or dogmatic science.

Wow, I went back and forth between addressing you, to addressing Ray. sorry about that! I guess I have a burr under my saddle huh?

Here is the redo''''

Reverand, a great example of that is Poverty Point Louisiana. I believe it is the findings there that will either force the powers that be to accept true history, or once they have died, will allow fresh blood to finally confirm truth leaving such a wonderful legacy and reputation for the deceased deniers. Ironically, if academia maintains the elitist sheep culture, the way RAY discredits ALL of Wolters legacy based off of one thing he claims is dishonest, well, that shall be the same fate in a much broader sense for the academic deniers and their work Ray now endorses.

Ha! I certainly wish my son could get his Master's for the price of a cup of coffee! Unfortunately, it's just another manifestation of the show's MO. Baseless shortcuts. I'm not a spiteful person, and my input here is not intended to hurt feelings, but there is a distinct lack of *real* academic research on the theses. Ergo, entertainment fluff. Taken as that, I can see it having value to some.

I've been pursuing the issue of Scott Wolter's alleged dating method for a reason. And that reason has been to allow his followers to show everyone here that their take on Scott Wolter and his "research" is all faith-based as they won't even discuss Wolter's alleged dating method. In fact, they entirely dismiss my calls for a discussion of it and deflect me elsewhere. Clearly, they avoid any and all critical thinking of Wolter's claims and that shows that they're only interested in things that support their belief system - and that's exactly what they accuse others of doing.

You are again confusing me with the comments on this blog post. Did you read my original article? It says nothing about the claims you are attaching to it. Wolter's claims are independent of his education, and I have dealt with his claims about history elsewhere.

I must admit to being confused about why you feel that I need to be held to a different standard than Wolter, that he can offer "conjecture" and "limited evidence" to reach wild conclusions, but that my fact-based reporting is somehow beyond the pale. Why do you think Wolter should be able to say whatsoever pops into his head, but no one else is allowed to voice an opinion?

SCOTT, one of the first things MY professors shared with me and my fellow grad students in cultural anthropology, is you must publish (not for the general public) but in the scientific journals of your peers. Hence, interactive scientific discussions can one a yea or nay to one's ideas can be shared that you may not have thought of or your peers haven't thought about. Not to mention, even being published in a journal gives the scientist more credence.

Such reviews are vital to scientific thought. Being published for the national public should come after scientific review. Have you been published in a scientific journal within your specialty?

Mr. Wolter, my question concern's the fact that on most of your shows you keep bringing up Free Masons that being said with you being a geologist why do you Keep bringing up Masons in history. Instead of bringing up masonary in the past why don't you take the time and research the Mason's of today and learn the truth before you start spouting off on TV. By the way I am a Free Mason and Proud of it.

Scott Wolter on the money. Have you ever been to the Native mounds in GA? Long begfore I ever heard of Scott I was struck immediaely by how much the mounds were similar to pyramids in Mexico and Guatremala (whereI have been twice. Then I saw somee of the statues Georgia found on the sites. Amazing coincidence or linkage? I go with Scott and I do not care if his degree is from the P_atterson, NJ School of Business Practice. So much of his presentations have been very poignant. While I do not agree with all of his findings he at least raises the contradiction. Skeptics who have never been to these places should keep their opinions to themselves. They think reality is in books. Two hundred years from now what we accept as gospel truth in physics, geology, biology, etc. will be considered quaint and archais. We will laugh at what we believed in 7568.


I can see (others can as well I assume) that you are a very intelligent and educated individual. My question to you is what is your obsession with Scott and his education? Does it affect you personally? Does it cost you money? What is he doing with HIS show that is causing you so much pain that you feel the absolute need of attemtping to discredit this person in front of the world? It makes me wonder why you dont focus your obvious intelligence elsewhere. I dont mean that as a slight. What I'm saying is if you put this much effort into solving history ( your counter findings on Scotts research) as you have put into Scott Wolters might have YOUR own show on TV.

Obviously someone at the history channel thinks he is credible enough to make the investment into him. And that investment has paid off because he has another season airing this year.

I think you could be much more succseful if you focused that energy into teaching history or publishing books on history to share with the world rather than targeting someone's education or lack of education..whatever....I mean honestly..who cares?

I've recently become disabled and find myself watching entirely too much ., however, I discovered your show and glad I did. My body may not be qualified to give any statements these days but my mind is. All these harsh comments. I'll tell you what I see. A father, husband and provider who seems to have a completely open mind about our Country because NO ONE on this blog was there 8555-5555 years ago. If you find something, awesome. If you don't, you dust yourself off and try again. Kudos. You're still a great dad and husband and educator. And if anyone has an issue with that, don't watch. It's called free will. The nasty comments are from very immature people. Of that I am certain. Please continue to keep my brain occupied with all that you do. We love your show.