Date: December 22, 2011 07:34PM
Wolter did not prove anything.
His study can be read at this link.http://www.ampetrographic.com/files/BatCreekStone.pdf
More about him can be read at wikipedia.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_F._Wolter
None of his testing has been submitted to professional journals of science for scholarly peer review. No mention is made about what the 12th Annual Report says on page 347. Mr. Emmert was sent to Haywood County, North Carolina to expose a hoax. It was there he learned how to give hoax artifacts the appearance of age. This was before he "found" the Bat Creek Stone.
"Mr. Emmert was sent into that region to procure, if possible, some specimens of this singular class of articles and to ascertain whether they were ancient or modern. After considerable difficulty he was entirely successful in his effort. He ascertained that these articles were made from the soapstone found in that region by some persons
who had learned how to give them the appearance of age. This is done by placing them, after being carved, in running water which is tinctured with iron, as most of the streams in that region are. As a proof of the correctness of his statement Mr. Emmert had the same parties who stated they had made some articles for Mr. Valentine make quite a number of similar articles for the Bureau."
The entire twelfth annual report can be read at this link.http://www.archive.org/details/annualreportofbu1218901891smit
Wolter's analysis mentioned aging of the stone as support for it being authentic but did not bring out the fact of 19th century "aging" methods known to be used to create hoax artifacts.
More info about hoaxes exposed:http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,368430,368430#msg-368430