Years ago, a college professor loaned me a book published by the Smithsonian. It was available through subscription only to college teachers. In it, there was an article about the discovery of pre-Columbian, European or Middle Eastern-made artifacts discovered various places in the United States. I know from dealing with professorial types that most of them don't want their theories challenged so resistance is natural coming from them. Still, Wolter's televised 2013 programs are really grasping at straws and getting off the track of archaeology. Even the Great Wall of Texas, if you examine the core samples, appear to have come from a single stone. How are you going to get a magnetic trace that is different from various parts of the same stone? Duh!
If mortar was indeed used between the stones, why not take samples of it? It would likely not be like the stone itself, and would resemble mortar used by ancient peoples. The fact that he does not time his visits to maximize the possibility of discovery, like solstices, low tides, etc. As a detective, he leaves much to be desired. His hydrochloric acid test would show the same result on many rocks because calcium carbonate is present in many southwestern rocks. A sample from my mine literally dissolved like an alka seltzer.
Ray, I was absolutely addressing your point of contention as to Wolters subjectivity in that he knew nothing about all these topics related to "America Unearthed" prior to the study, and adding to that with the mention of his spotless record in court when he testifies. Personally not knowing him, nor being a biographer that recorded his daily life, I guess I have no way to prove any of it too you, so for you to read his book would not waste my time.
As to your question on the differences in weathering between that which was exposed above the soil level and that which was not, I mentioned that the stone was wire brushed in the early 1900's, so I assumed you would know that partially answered your question in that a great deal was compromised and I am not at all qualified to comment on behalf of Mr Wolter to try to prove his methods, nor other than generalizations, should I try, and shall repeat what Reverend Phil said and ask you to read the book, letting Mr Wolter speak for himself, and therefore not wasting my time.
As to my "spin" of the prejudice label because of your claim for evidence, that is a misdirection of the truth Ray, my claim is true and based off your many prior comments about Mr Wolter directly, and your exaggerations of situations and contact involving Mr Wolter, you are indeed prejudice and any results you discover can truthfully be considered tainted by that prejudice. Your attempt misdirection itself is either a blatant lie in its denial, or evading the answering of my question regarding your own opinion if your results could be as impartial and accurate as a comparable peer. The answer is you can not Ray, you are tainted goods, and the Lord may forgive, but science does not. If you believe in accurate science Ray, I am asking you to disqualify yourself from this conversation, and while I think your claim of my affection for Mr Wolter is one of your exaggerations, I will also disqualify myself from this conversation and wish everyone a Happy Festivus of Holidays.
After you complete the virtual lab, read the directions for designing and conducting your experiment on page 150 of the student lab manual. You will need to prepare an investigative question as well as an experimental and null hypothesis. Record your question and hypotheses in your laboratory investigation notebook. Design an experiment, prepare hypothetical data based on your findings of the virtual experiment, and share your findings in the appropriate discussion forum. You must be specific enough in your procedure so that another can easily reconstruct the experiment, however, you do not have to be elaborate. Be careful when constructing your procedure based on the steps provided in the lab manual, as you may have adjusted your procedure to match your needs. The purpose of this is not to have you recreate the lab that has been prepared, but to use your understanding of scientific methodology and inquiry to construct a viable lab.
Organize the data collected from the virtual lab as well as hypothetical data from your experimental design. Be sure to label your data tables appropriately.
Biology Majors must complete 40 hours in Biology (BY) courses approved for the major, including and with a C or better (fulfilling Core Curriculum Area III and the courses taken to satisfy the requirements below. Additional courses to total 40 semester hours selected after consultation with an advisor and consideration of interests and career goals. At least 9 hours must be 400-level or higher. No more than 6 total hours of , , , and can be applied towards the 40 hours of Biology (BY) courses. Note: , , BY 108, BY 109, , , , and cannot be applied toward the Biology major.
Coastal and pelagic birds, with emphasis on ecology, taxonomy, and distribution. Lecture,laboratory, and field work.
Prerequisites: [Min Grade: D]
Marine algae and vascular and non-vascular plants (distribution, identification, structure, ecology, and reproduction). Lecture, laboratory, and field work. 12 semester hours in biology required.
Marine fishes, reptiles, and mammals (systematics, zoogeography, and ecology). Lecture, laboratory, and field work. 12 semester hours in biology required.
I stumbled upon this thread which remarkably has played-out over a year or more. I don't care about your level of formal training. I am a physician-scientist. I have first-author published highly cited papers in Nature and in the New England Journal of Medicine. I say this only to indicate that I am not a fringe scientist. I have followed your show, and read some of your books. You are thoughtful and, to my sensibilities, exhibit a reasonable level of scientific skepticism. I started my career in liberal arts, studying philosophy and literature, and eventually wended my way into medicine and science. I am currently a professor of medicine, and was an assistant professor at Harvard Medical School. Having taught students for over 20 years and having trained numerous individuals who have gone on in their careers to be doctors and highly successful scientists, I can tell you something about what it means to be a scientist. Its not about credentials. Its about the pure will to discover the truth. Consider Charles Best, the medical student who was the main driving force behind the discovery of insulin, a compound which has utterly changed the practice of medicine and the lives of millions of people -- Charle Best was a student-assistant ot Banting, but it was his cleverness, his "thinking-out-of-the-box", his genuinely pure intellect that drove the project forward. Banting himself acknowledges this. In the end, the Nobel prize went to Banting and the guy who lent them their lab space in the Biochem department at Toronto. But everyone remembers Banting and Best. No one will forget Best - his name is synonymous with this discovery. So, my message is this -- ignore these doubters and do your work. You are a thoughtful, critical scientist, regardless of your level of formal academic credentialing. These credential really don't matter -- in the end you either have a provable hypotheses or an unprovable hypotheses, and Science (with a capital "S") doesn't care who is doing the proving/disproving.
Keep the faith. Keep challenging the scientific establishment.
Ps. as regards commercialization - please, no one reading this should fool themselves... science is commercial in nature -- getting new ideas out there requires marketing, and if you can paid in the process of marketing your ideas to the world, then you are doubly succesful. Scott-your show is reasonable, interesting, and fun to watch. Keep it up!
I have watched several episodes of this show, and I have to admit that going in, I was very excited about the prospect of seeing mainstream overturned with hard evidence. At the end of the first episode, I was astonished by a few self evident facts displayed. Fact one is that Scott makes suppositions and only then looks for supporting evidence. Fact two- every bit of 'evidence' he thinks he has found is rebuffed or dismissed by the experts he consults even though they are carefully edited to seem more accepting. Fact three is that even after hearing that that there is no way that this 'evidence' is what he hopes it is, he states how monumental it would be if such a thing were true and states his belief that, "the door on this is still open" and the clip is cut before the expert replies,"No... it's not, and the evidence proved it's not." The more experts deny his fantasy, the more vehemently he asserts that it must be true! Science is the direct OPPOSITE of denial of the truth. Fact four- At the end of every show, not one question has been answered, not one piece of real evidence has been supported, and they continually fail to find anything they are looking for, and was sure was there, even after they used the dowsing rods to make sure it was there! Lol Fact five- Anyone who even allows a dowsing rod to even be mentioned in the same sentence as science, just lost all credibility. My first thought at the end of the show was,"What? They didn't find a thing! What a joke." I have to say I am appalled and ashamed by many of the comments on this page. The most important thing to remember here is that this man is a showman... and in the words of a far more successful showman, "There is a sucker born every minute!" I could really care less whether he has framed horse manure on his wall- the proof is in the pudding, as they say. Some of these view points of Scott's 'supporters' would be more excusable 15 years ago, but now the internet is sophisticated enough that nearly anyone can research any extraordinary claims themselves. I routinely double check everything I hear on both the Science Channel and H2 and I can tell you that the majority of everything on these channels is suspect if you are looking for unassailable and incontrovertible facts. These channels deal more with controversial hypothesis and conspiracy 'theories' rather than supportable scientific theory. That anyone in this day can seriously buy into 'ancient aliens' and such after actually listening to the poop which pours from their mouths with such side grinning conviction, makes me fear for the future of mankind. Intelligent people think about the future and straining resources and have restraint on their reproduction while uneducated people who believe exciting fairy tales multiply like mindless rats! Otherwise these channels would be too embarrassed to air such travesties of the scientific method!! If there weren't billions of suckers out there, we wouldn't have corporations gouging us and paying us dirt now would we? Or a top 1% who considers us all suckers...Anyway, this is the foundation which America Unearthed is built on... Our true history probably is distorted and missing many chucks of truth, but there is a good reason for this... there is no strong evidence to the contrary and because we've been foolish enough to allow the greedy enough power to distort the truth when it serves their greed! Science is NEVER based on 'could be'. I can tell you that any serious academic will dismiss everything on this show based on everything in it! How can I tell that? Because I don't have a degree either and even I find it embarrassing how easily people are taken in by this kind of mumbo-jumbo. I study physics constantly as an amateur and have for years, so I know that anyone without formal training in the sciences is swimming deep in a dark and forbidding ocean with little chance in hades of successfully navigating it. Higher knowledge is often incomprehensible if you don't have years of the proper prerequisites and it is also true that "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing," because you will always draw the wrong conclusion when you are not in possession of all the facts, most of which are far above the average joe's head. The accumulated knowledge of the ages is so vast that you can spend a lifetime and never learn more than a bit of it, let alone break new ground. This makes it very easy to 'wow' and pull the wool over the eyes of the average couch potato that has not spent a minute in secondary education. My general rule of thumb is this... don't believe a word you hear from friends until you've confirmed it yourself or gotten the opinion of several people who are more knowledgeable than yourself, and don't believe a word of what you hear on TV- Period!! TV is fantasy land, not a substitute for college.
Well Scott as an archaeologist working for federal land management agencies for the last 18 years, w/ real degrees in Anthropology (that would mean, degrees that I actually worked for), as well as a minor in geology from the very same UMD program you went to, I'd have to say after all these years studying and working at archaeology, you need quite a bit of smarts to be adequate. Quite a bit.
Kind of like data, to make archaeological assertions about major migrations or logistically complicated forays or resource extraction expeditions deep into unknown areas... or cross oceans. You need quite a bit. Hundreds, if not thousands of sites and thousands if not tens of thousands of accurately provenienced artifacts w/ clearly demonstrable contexts.
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" as they say. You're going to promote major changes in two-plus centuries of heavily evidence-backed archaeological knowledge you WILL come up w/ tons of data and demonstrable analysis of that data in order to even get close to approximating the new generalization or confirming and extraordinary hypothesis. In science you have no choice. It's not for the intellectually lazy.. or the well paid shill... or profitably promoted, disrespectful, anti-science bad-boy.
But you know that.
However I will say you do have smarts of a kind. It requires a level of "entrepreneurial creativity" to put together a lucrative television show that promotes psuedo-science to an uneducated public. Maybe not THAT much in smarts but some creativity is necessary to pull the wool over so many eyes and straight up lie to a woefully uninformed public. I'd also say a very cynical outlook on rationalism is necessary, coupled w/ a major disrespect of science. I've been dying to know.. did all that come from poor grades in Min-Pet? Did O.J. or J.C. doc you on too many lab quizzes? Were you one of the unfortunates that mis-identified the black plagioclase sample, like me? I wonder when it was that you lost your way? And why? Was it all just for the money? Do you actually believe that the Templars or the Nine from Mordor dropped that farmer's forgery in that field? Where are the other Templar sites? Pre-Columbian? There should be Templar or European medieval artifacts in all those hundreds of thousands of meticulously excavated archaeology sites that date from the late prehistoric periods in eastern North America? The St. Lawrence River? There should be some that wound up as trade or battle-booty in early Iroquoian sites, Mississippian sites, Oneota from such an expedition. Along their route. Yet. There are none. And none, from a sampling universe that may well be in the millions? Smarts indeed. What you lack in smarts in a basic knowledge of scientific method or even rudimentary data analysis. Or maybe it's just too much work for you. It's easier to show hig-tech analytical machinery at work on a television show or put on some smarmy, petulant towards an established archaeological researcher on T.V. in very heavily edited shots, than spend years and years pouring over and analyzing archaeological data and putting in hundreds of hours of painstaking excavation and survey work to try and understand the complicated, irreducible archaeological record even a little bit. Again... work involved.
Thank the gods we've got old Scotty to XRF a rock and tell us how empires rise and fall, and once again, how apparently inept all those indigenous cultures were at cultural evolution.
So... petulant, lazy and racist. But... you can figure out how to turn a trick for a buck and bamboozle an audience. That's gotta count for something Scott. Your mom must be proud seeing your show.