Was he serious or are all his claims just fantasy.


Somehow I get the feeling he was just talking a lot of nonsense.


Anyway this is what I copied and pasted for your to read:


http://www.ronwyatt.com/home_tmp_6969.html

Dirk, I'm afraid it's all worse than fantasy, it's a load of deliberate falsehoods, even the creationist bampots (good Scottish expression for nut jobs) disavow Wyatt and his nonsense. Take the Noah's Ark rubbish - his 'site' is a geological phenomenon but the Turkish government (what nice people) are happy to exploit this stuff to encourage tourism and the local 'guides' ( poor bluddy Kurds, most of them) need to eat. I've seen Ararat, it's enormous and there's not enough water in all the oceans to float anything up anywhere near the point he suggests as the resting place.

Dr Irving Finkel has explained that the original ark story, Mesopotamian and pre-dating the biblical version by millennia, was round anyway.  https://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/feb/13/ark-before-noah-irving-finkel-review

Oh, and try googling 'molecular frequency generator' which he claims to have used successfully to record the outline of the 'ark'. Here's an example of what you would find, a review of one model:

The whole concept of using a simple low-frequency signal generator to resonate distant buried objects is total folly. Therfore, the Omni-Range Master is an ordinary dowsing device, and even dowsing has been demonstrated repeatedly to be a self-delusion.

While the signal generator is of superb construction, it performs absolutely no useful function in the supposed locating of buried objects. The dowsing rods behave exactly the same, with or without the signal generator. All claims made of the Omni-Range Master pertaining to the ability to locate distant buried objects, are false.

There's gold in them thar deceptions.

What a pity you didn't have the chance to enjoy the old BBC History message boards where these things, and many others, were discussed vigorously and at length.

Wyatt - and the continuation of the promotion of his charlatanry even after his death by certain parties - highlights a larger problem that has always existed regarding perception of truth versus truth and how to differentiate intelligently between both, a problem that has exponentially exploded in terms of severity and extent since the internet began to replace colligated literary texts as the prime source of information for the majority of people researching the majority of subjects.

Chancers like Wyatt have always existed - and fools like those who believe what he claimed will always be with us. But keeping them at the fringe of serious and intelligent research and debate is getting increasingly more difficult as the borders between rational, educated theoretics and ignorant codology become increasingly blurred for the majority of people within the potential audience. However, as ferval pointed out, at least opportunistic chancers debunking other opportunistic chancers for being too overtly opportunistic chancers is still a valuable indicator that the latter are just that (just as the ignorant vitriol employed by the former in the place of rational and educated theoretic argument tends rather to betray them too).