One authority suggests that the video tape Wyatt employed to show these underwater “artifacts” appears to be a hoax; he challenged him to subject the items to a C14 dating test — if indeed he ever had an actual sample of anything (Zias, .).The problems associated with Wyatt’s alleged discoveries are astronomical — beyond one’s ability to calculate. Why was the evidence never brought forth for critical and scientific examination?First, the site of the exodus route, as described in Exodus 14:1ff, is highly disputed.
And yet he had no scientific credibility at all with respectable scholars; he was and is adored only by a band of deluded, though devoted, cultic disciples.
In this brief review of the Standish brothers’ book, we offer two devastating examples of the hoaxes perpetrated by Ron Wyatt.
This sparked Wyatt’s interest, and was the beginning of a long amateur career as a sensationalist pseudo-archaeologist.
For the last 22 years of his life he made numerous trips to the Middle East.
2) “have been lost in the sands of time” (Bruckner, 2008, 129). Conservative scholarship strongly argues that Israel crossed the Gulf of Suez (Vos, 2003, 104ff), and not the Gulf of Aqaba, as Wyatt contended.
Second, Wyatt claimed that he was using simple recreational scuba equipment when he discovered these wheels, etc., at a depth of some 200 feet in the Gulf.Ron Wyatt is neither an archaeologist nor has he ever carried out a legally licensed excavation in Israel or Jerusalem.In order to excavate one must have at least a BA in archaeology which he does not possess despite his claims to the contrary.of the Durupinar site — a large natural, boat-shaped formation — in eastern Turkey.Feverish speculation circulated that this could be the residue of Noah’s Ark.In 1985, 73 years following that Atlantic catastrophe, the submerged vessel was discovered and explored.