Wolter on peer review.

	Scott Wolter has asked that this email be posted here to help us
understand what sort of peer review his geological study of the
KRS received. It is from an email relating to his current work on
the Spirit Pond stones. Except for removing identifying
information about the original email's recipient and other
personal information, I haven't altered Wolter's email in any way.


-----------------------------------------------------
Begin Wolter's email:

From: Wolter, Scott Sent: Monday, January 23, 2006 9:37 AM Subject: Spirit Pond Investigation &
Peer Review

Dear -- -- ,



I thought I would drop you both a note with a couple of points
to consider during your discussions about our proposal to
perform a forensic investigation of the Spirit Pond rune
stones.  The first point is relative to --'s comment
about an apparent lack of peer review of the geologic work we
performed and reported in our book.  The fact of the matter of
is that my report has been peer reviewed, in writing, by eight
senior geologists and geological engineers.  These individuals
are Professor emeritus John Green, Professor emeritus Charles
L. Matsch, Professor Richard Ojakangas, Professor emeritus G.
B. Morey, Professor emeritus Paul Wieblen, Dr. Bryant Mather
(now deceased), geological engineer Terrance Swor P.E. and
Senior ACI International Fellow, Richard Stehly P.E.  I have
also presented my geological findings at the American
Institute of Professional Geologists (AIPG) National
Conference in Lake Tahoe, Nevada, in 2002, and have been asked
to teach a half day short course on the KRS at the 2006 AIPG
National Convention in St. Paul, Minnesota, this fall.  Our
local AIPG chapter is hosting the event and I am on the
planning committee.  Perhaps -- would like to attend the
Convention?



I should also add that when we took the KRS to Sweden in
October of 2003, the Swedish government assembled a scientific
testing team, headed by Runo Löfvendahl, to examine the KRS
using "Popper's Falsification Principal" in an attempt to find
an alternate explanation to my geologic findings.  They were
unable to do so.  You can read about that investigation, which
was a rather poor effort in my opinion, on pages 301, 317-318,
321-322, 326, 343-345, 361-364, 373-374.



At the end of the day, my findings are published in the book
you now have that anyone in the world can review, including
--.  I encourage him to do so and respectfully request
that he puts his comments in writing.  I should also mention
that as a licensed professional geologist in the State of
Minnesota (#30024) I am held accountable for all work that I
perform by the geoscientists licensing board for the State of
Minnesota.  It is mandatory that I am objective and unbiased
in my geologic investigations.  I take this very seriously and
only write opinions that I believe I have the data to support.
I am frequently called to testify as an expert witness and
have won many cases with far less geologic evidence than we
have documented on the KRS.  Keep in mind that I had never
heard of the KRS when I was first approached to perform this
work.  I was convinced by my geologic findings that the
inscription was old before I ever met *** Nielsen, or learned
that geologist Newton Winchell had worked on the KRS
previously.  He concluded in 1910 that the KRS was genuine.



I realize that Birgitta Wallace is a personal friend of yours
--, and personally, I like Birgitta and found her to be
very gracious during our visit in April of 2004 (see pages
353-355).  However, she has been allowed to accuse Olof Ohman
of carving the KRS inscription without one shred of credible
evidence, and apparently without any fear of professional or
legal retribution.  She has not backed up any of her claims
regarding the KRS with supportable facts.  Where was the peer
review of her work?  What kind of accountability is someone
like Birgitta Wallace held to in her profession?  It appears
that her title and reputation has afforded her an implied
credibility that needs no oversight.  She has certainly not
presented evidence to prove the KRS is modern, and I don't
believe she or Einar Haugen have made a credible case to
support their assertions that the Spirit Pond RS's are fake
either.  For that matter, where was the peer review of Einar
Haugen?  His fundamental error of incorrectly dating the
Spirit Pond rune stones to the year 1010, threw his entire
analysis of the inscriptions off from the very beginning.  In
fairness to him, he wasn't aware of the medieval dating
practices using the Easter Table used to date the Spirit Pond
(1401 and 1402 A.D.), the KRS (1362 A.D.) and the
Kingigtorssuag (1314 A.D.) inscriptions.



In fairness to all investigators of these artifacts in the
past, none of them had access to the voluminous new source
information that has only become available in the last couple
decades.  Specifically, the most relevant documents being  the
middle to late 14th century diplomas and the hundreds of
medieval runic inscriptions on Gotland.  These documents bear
directly on the language, grammar, runes, and dialect on all
four rune stones.  The third volume of the "Gotlands
Runinskrifter", which contain critical evidence relative the
KRS (and Spirit Pond), was only published on the internet in
2004!  See the following link:



http://ariadne.uio.no/runenews/nor_2003/snaedalms.htm



*** and I are currently preparing a new paper on the Spirit
Pond inscriptions which certainly do have many similarities to
the KRS.  However, your stones have many significant
differences.  Before we can finalize this report, there needs
to be a microscopic digital photo-library of the inscriptions
generated to accurately document exactly what is carved on
those stones.  It was this important procedure that led to the
accurate documentation and evaluation of aspects of the KRS
inscription that were previously unknown.



We look forward to working with you on this exciting project.
--



Respectfully,



Scott Wolter P.G.

Minnesota License # 30024

Geologist/Petrographer/President

American Petrographic Services

St. Paul, Minnesota 55114



.

Loading