I typed my wrists sore yesterday writing up reviews of America Unearthed and Ancient Aliens, so I’m going to keep this short today and let the pictures do the talking. On America Unearthed S01E10 “A Desert Mystery,” Scott Wolter argued that the image of a dinosaur appearing on some fake lead artifacts found in Tucson, Arizona could not be a dinosaur because dinosaurs did not have forked tongues. Therefore, the artifacts must be genuine because the dinosaur was “really” a lizard—this despite the fact that no lizard looks anything like the dinosaur whose anatomy we are asked to believe is accurately transcribed. Here’s the Tucson diplodocus as it appeared on America Unearthed: Here it is highlighted for visibility: I would like to counter the assertion that this is a lizard by offering up the fact that many people of the early twentieth century believed dinosaurs had forked tongues and therefore would have faked a dinosaur drawing in just such a way. First, let’s remember that dinosaurs were thought in those days to be giant lizards, which would have shared reptilian characteristics with lizards, including forked tongues. Second, paleontologists hadn’t yet clearly separated the various types of large lizard-like creatures into true dinosaurs, large sea creatures, pterosaurs, etc., so all of these long-necked, long-tailed monsters were seen as closely related. But let’s not take my word for it. In 1917, Charles Hazelius Sternberg, the amateur paleontologist, wrote a book about hunting for dinosaur bones in the Western United States. Discussing Gorgosaurus libratus, a type of tyrannosaur, he wrote: “Fierce indeed must he have looked, when he slunk up on his prey, his eyes flashing cruelty, with glistening teeth also, and forked tongue.” With that stipulated, take a look at these Victorian drawings taken from natural history books. Note that the dinosaur and dinosaur-like creatures had spiked, protruding, and/or forked tongues. Now for the pièce de résistance: The following image comes from the 1911 edition of the American Review of Reviews, reproducing an earlier German engraving. It shows the diplodocus, a dinosaur discovered in 1877, as reconstructed by paleontologists. (American paleontologists disagreed about what looks like squares running down the back and preferred a lower angle for the neck.) Note carefully that it is an almost exact match to the diplodocus on the Tucson Artifacts, down to the protruding tongue! Here it is again from the same page of the same issue, with the distinctive back hump: It is entirely possible that the Arizona drawing was meant as a really poor representation of an indigenous lizard like the teiidae, the fringe-toed lizards, brush lizards, or some such. But none of them match the picture half so well as the early twentieth century reconstructions of diplodocus and brontosaurus (know called Apatosaurus), especially give the prominent hump on the back, long neck, and thick feet. Since a forked tongue is no bar to fakery, I feel comfortable concluding this drawing was badly copied from one very much like the Review illustrations above.
94 Comments
CFC
2/24/2013 12:18:36 am
Thanks for the additional information.
Reply
Christopher Randolph
2/24/2013 02:49:18 am
If I drew a picture of Scott Wolter I'd draw a forked tongue.
Reply
3/20/2016 12:54:06 am
We colombians neither heard of forked tongue lizzards nor diplodocus with curved tail.It`s pityful the way Mr Wolter tries to engulf such a fairytale to us poor viewers of his space in H2 channel, and, of course, a lack of seriousness of the mentioned TV media
Reply
Kristian
2/24/2013 03:29:48 am
That's exactly what I was thinking when Wolter tried to get that ridiculous claim through unchallenged. Sure we know now they didn't have forked tongues, but in the early 1900's? Please.
Reply
Sharon Bankhead Lammers
4/19/2014 02:08:50 am
The Dino did stand for something but I can't remember what it was but it did have something to do with Animals not all being what they seam! I was not a hoax, however we were scared into keep our mouths shut about what happened when it was really buried and made and by who! Lets just say it had nothing to do with the GOD most people think about!
Reply
ryan
10/7/2015 02:31:54 pm
duh dumbo
Dale
3/6/2015 01:18:00 am
Maybe they actually saw one back in the day, and they did have forked tongues. Wish they would have done carbon dating on the dinosaur soft tissue found in the T-rex bones by Dr. Mary Schweitzer. Take a look at the stegosaurus carved in the rock column in the 800 year old temple, Ancient Angkor, by Michael Freeman, pg. 143. Break out of the evolutionary stereotype.
Reply
OrionRed
8/4/2016 10:00:21 pm
"Wish they would have done carbon dating on the dinosaur soft tissue found in the T-rex bones by Dr. Mary Schweitzer."
Cathy Anderson
2/24/2013 03:36:51 am
What makes this even more rediculous, is the man has friends who are masons.
Reply
Gordon Johnson
8/1/2020 07:44:24 pm
Some Freemasons actually BELIEVE the masons derive from the Knights Templar, despite the fact that there is no documentary evidence for their existence prior to the 17th century.
Reply
CFC
2/24/2013 03:59:39 am
Reminds me of the green Sinclair gas station dinosaur - without the fork tongue of course.
Reply
Joe
2/27/2013 05:40:05 am
How'd Wolter miss that obvious opportunity to incorporate not just one, but TWO gas station logos into the show? Surely, it wouldn't have taken much to tie it all together.
Reply
2/24/2013 02:38:57 pm
I had one of the Sinclair Gas blow up brontosauri when I was a kid. It did not have a forked tongue. I often regret that I didn't keep it. Considering my hoarding proclivities, I'm sure my parents got rid of it when I wasn't looking.
Reply
kaja
2/24/2013 11:49:23 pm
I'm sorry I'm a little ignorant on the subject but how do "we" know dinosaurs didn't have forked tongues? Did they dig up a fossilized dino tongue or something?
Reply
2/25/2013 12:30:48 am
Great question! Overall, there is little fossil evidence for tongues and we do not know the shape of most dinosaurs' tongues. However, since dinosaurs did not have twin-branched Jacobson's organs, associated with forked tongues, it is unlikely their tongues were so shaped. Additionally, the extant phylogenetic bracket suggests a mobile, muscular tongue like that of modern birds.
Reply
Dale
3/6/2015 01:14:05 am
maybe they actually saw one back in the day, and they did have forked tongues. Wish they would have done carbon dating on the dinosaur soft tissue found in the T-rex bones by Dr. Mary Schweitzer. Take a look at the stegosaurus carved in the rock column in the 800 year old temple, Ancient Angkor, by Michael Freeman, pg. 143.
CFC
2/25/2013 12:40:28 am
Jason- is it possible that the dinosaur on the sword doesn't have a tongue but is a natural mark on the object?
Reply
2/25/2013 01:24:15 am
I haven't examined the actual sword, but the close-ups shown on America Unearthed made it look like the tongue was intentionally engraved.
Reply
pixel8ed
5/20/2015 06:21:58 pm
I stumbled upon your site looking for information to debunk the "Jesuit Cross" shown on The Legend of the Superstition Mountains; another ridiculous show on the History Channel. Your site is extremely interesting and your thoughts are rational and well thought out.
Andrew
9/2/2015 09:55:42 am
From what i can see in the image the fork is mot likely just pitting or whatever those marks are that can be seen in numerous places.
Reply
Phil
2/25/2013 06:37:33 am
Thanks Jason! Your viewing and comments spare me wasting hours of time watching this stupid show. I have such a hard time watching this rubbish that I have given it up for some factual Tom and Jerry cartoons. You demonstrate great fortitude to continue to watch, and comment so eloquently, regarding this completely idioic program. It is astounding what the American people will take as truth witout so muchas a question.
Reply
Karl Schroeder
2/26/2013 05:17:51 am
Excellent job
Reply
justin
2/27/2013 06:23:08 pm
It is so sad because it seems like the original premise of this bozo's show could have led to some interesting and important stories of lesser known historical finds in the US. That was what I was hoping for when the show started. Of course I didn't know who Scott Wolter was at the time.
Reply
Mike Knap
2/28/2013 04:07:40 am
http://www.genesispark.org/exhibits/evidence/historical/ancient/dinosaur/
Reply
Christopher Randolph
2/28/2013 06:13:20 am
http://www.dailysquib.co.uk/most-popular/1236-scientists-prove-jesus-walked-with-dinosaurs.html
Reply
Bonnie
3/16/2013 05:04:01 am
great website - thanks!
Reply
Marco
3/3/2013 02:31:14 am
That's not a forked tongue. The creature depicted is clearly swallowing a "hooked X". Do keep up.
Reply
Kevbo
11/2/2013 07:52:05 pm
Lols all around! ha ha!
Reply
Bonnie
3/12/2013 05:31:22 am
Hi Jason - Although I think it is always a good idea to investigate the pro's and con's for any given topic, I also believe it is a good idea not to throw the baby out with the bath water so to speak. Thus, although there are not many adverse opinions on Scott Wolters show "America Unearthed", I truly believe there is enough information available now that suggests there could have been many, many different types of cultures that traversed in and out of the America's over hundreds and perhaps thousands of years. So to actually eliminate anyone (including the Knights Templar) would be counter-productive to really learning the truth about Meso-America. The ancient rock art here for one thing speaks volumes about what was on the minds of ancient people and especially in the West (Arizona included) there are images that represent dragons and dinosaurs along with crosses, blades, alchemy type symbols, sailing vessesls, etc. Who knows, maybe some of our sea going ancestors actually originated here too.
Reply
ryan
6/5/2019 12:38:38 am
I know this is 6 years late but this show is bunk. He is a forensic geologist trying to prove things that are never proven on the show. He goes on these "quests" in an hour show and most of it is him talking and not doing anything real, just to waste time. I'm watching it right now and they are trapesing through the desert and a lot of the shots are him talking or of the environment.
Reply
B L
3/13/2013 10:20:45 am
Here's a new twist to the dinosaur on the Tucson artifacts...in my opinion the lizard bears a striking resemblance to the Sinclair gas station mascot. I'm surprised that Scott Wolter didn't use this evidence to argue that the Sinclair family were the founders of this "proto-Templar" group that settled in the Tucson area in the year 800.
Reply
Vanessa H.
1/4/2014 07:04:27 pm
Wait a minute! Dinosaur on artifact-Same dinosaur on Sinclair gas station logo- William Sinclair founded Rosslyn Chapel-the Da Vinci Code must be true!
Reply
Bonnie
3/15/2013 06:50:18 am
There is a photo of a fire-breathing dragon/dinosaur rock art image from Arizona at a website for kids:
Reply
Tiny Elvis
3/24/2013 04:59:38 pm
If there were artifacts dug up 80 years ago, there would be many more artifacts in the same place. Of course, a bit of digging could have confirmed that the site had other artifacts that are 1200 years old and of European origin.
Reply
Chris
3/24/2013 08:08:22 pm
Does anyone have information as to whether the people that discovered these artifacts were Mormon? There is a long history of LDS hoaxing in the Southwest trying to validate Smith's claims in the Book of Mormon. I greatly enjoy the Uncovered show but the investigations are far too brief and one-sided. The end of an episode leaves the viewer with far more questions than answers. I would love to have seen chemical analysis of the lead to see if it were consistent with lead of that period or with modern smelting. Many copper sheets with "ancient" writings were debunked this way.And do we see Dino portrayals in art from 800 to 1000 AD? I think the producers could turn over a few more stones without much difficulty.
Reply
Alkahest
8/18/2014 03:34:16 am
This would have nothing to do with "proving" the validity of the Book of Mormon since templars, lead crosses, and dinosaurs have nothing to do with it. Plus there is no current consensus among Mormons as to where the events in the book took place beyond the belief that it happened somewhere in North and/or South America. There are a couple theories that range from along the Mississippi or possibly in Guatemala, but no theories include Arizona as a potential place.
Reply
Steve Collins
3/25/2013 07:35:42 am
Why have dragons been ruled out ? Dragon symbols are found worldwide.
Reply
3/25/2013 07:45:59 am
Classical dragons didn't have feet because they were giant snakes. Dragons with feet and wings were late medieval adaptations of the Classical motif. In the 700s, when the "Roman" colony was supposedly founded, a dragon would have looked like a snake, not a dinosaur.
Reply
Bonnie
3/25/2013 10:11:00 am
Here is a website that shows some 6-9th century art from the Tang Dynasty and most of the dragons have feet. 3/25/2013 10:22:36 am
Chinese dragons aren't lizards; they are composite creatures made of the seven (or is it nine? I forget.) different special animals. The dinosaur on the artifacts is clearly one creature. Additionally, the Tang dinosaurs are lithe and jaunty, with scales and spikes, while the Tucson dinosaur is fat and humped, just like a diplodocus reconstruction of the era.
Bonnie
3/25/2013 10:44:09 am
Let's just agree to disagree -
Reply
Ra
4/10/2013 03:36:37 pm
Yes that definitely was a dinosaur carving. You couldnt get a better looking carving of one at that time period. As far as I know there were not any writings or knowledge of what dinosaurs looked like in 800 AD with meat and all.
Reply
b.davis
4/28/2013 04:27:17 am
Mr. Colavito,
Reply
7/12/2013 12:15:02 pm
Go to my "America Unearthed" page under the "Articles" section above and select the "Desert Cross" episode link. It will give you information about the content of the inscriptions.
Reply
Justin
7/12/2013 12:33:08 pm
How do we know its not a dragon? They were rather common in symbols. Yep, even long necked ones which would have been seen by early "Knight" groups. Not actual dragons of course but the paintings and carvings of dragons that have been created for longer then the Christian faith has been around. Not all of them had wings and many had long necks or tails. The assumption of the dinosaur could be a coincidence. Either way, more study needs to be done.
Reply
7/12/2013 12:43:19 pm
The putative age of the carving puts it before dragons were envisioned as having feet. In Antiquity and the early Middle Ages they were seen as giant snakes.
Reply
Ken
7/12/2013 03:22:58 pm
I believe the owner of that sword drew that picture of a dinosaur to the handle to gain strength and courage from it, and not to portray what he saw at that time, as we all know dinosaurs were long extinct by then. Just like soldiers from decades ago drew images on their sheilds or chest of bears, lions, tigers, snakes etc. Just to intimidate the enemy and not to mention in today's armies and sports also makes reference to real and mythical creatures.
Reply
Dave
7/15/2013 11:28:08 am
I believe the owner of that sword new what a dinosaur looked like. Oh..wait next your gonna say he probably dug up some bones and reconstructed it back in 800 ad that's hoe they know what they look like lol.
Reply
sharon(may not have been that when i was little)
4/19/2014 01:33:38 am
the sward was not as old as they were saying but it was real and it want a game to us when we were little! We thought that we were doing something that would change the world for the better! When we got to the point that the swards were found is when those Government people and those other men, one man told the older boy that if he could brake that sward without touching it then the boy would do everything he was told or I would be shot! That man didn't brake it he had someone in the brush shot it and that was what broke it! He lied to Charlie and then we were all loaded up and taken to Wounded knee because that was where they wanted him to make it look like I was going along with what was going on! And because of it we didn't get to one of the places we said we would be!
Reply
Dave
7/15/2013 06:15:29 am
You guys are foolish and you think history lies, there are so many artifacts with Dino's on them but you still cling to billions of years!! the Earth and Dino's are not that old. You can't accept that people have seen them and lived side by side with them ?? Native Americans,Vikings,and Europeans and many others have real artifacts with living Dinosaurs carved on them in plain view,but I suppose you think they all are retarded as well...Ha ha ha
Reply
Only Me
7/19/2013 09:02:42 am
No, troll, just you.
Reply
Alkahest
8/18/2014 05:30:44 am
Please tell me you're not using Dinotopia as evidence...
Reply
Alkahest
8/18/2014 05:32:11 am
...or How to Train Your Dragon...
Michelle Kelly
10/14/2013 10:43:49 am
I think the animal craving is something seen by the person who did it. The forked tongue issue is a red herring. Scientists said in the past that dinos became birds without forked tongues (so could have been have been a lizard image), thus the image is not a dinosaur? The dino to bird evolution isn't holding water over the last decade. The hip connection to birds is minor and apparently some scientists say that the design of fossil hips would NOT support the lung expansion needed by birds. No preening gland, no ability to turn heads 180 degrees, no sizing genes that produce 100 ft dinos and tiny birds. If you took the "dinos went to birds" theory off the table, then why can't it be a dino or an early lizard? I am fascinated by the fact that someone would even add a dino on the sword! If faking the artifacts, why add "modern" image ie 1900's as commented above? We need to have open minds on this. I am ok with Scott making a hypothesis and then working it out as best as he is trained. We all should do the same. I am not sure why Jason is trying to be so absolute on this being a fake. What is in it for him? I teach my kids to explore and keep investigating. Nothing in science should be absolute. I hate people trying to tell the next generation to accept status quo. We are killing our future scientists with this ridicule on an honest investigation.
Reply
10/14/2013 10:57:13 am
You assume that the hoaxers were educated, but their awful Latin shows they were not.
Reply
ryan
6/5/2019 12:49:27 am
The guy is a forensic geologist, someone who studies geology for law enforcement for crimes. He has no background in history and does not do any real research. He's talking about crosses, which has nothing to do with geology, but acts as if he's an "expert". I am working on my Masters in history and I have to do so much research to prove my thesis. I can't go out and say that something happened or didn't happen without proof. This guy doesn't prove anything. He's always talking about Knights Templars coming here or some other group coming here before Columbus even sailed. The only people here before the "white man" was the Native Americans and the Aztecs, Mayans, and Incans. Vikings may have landed in Canada but they didn't go to Wisconsin, nor did ancient medievel knights go to Arizona. This show is bunk and entertainment only.
Reply
Bonnie
10/14/2013 06:38:15 pm
More and more people are choosing to be open-minded these days and I for one think that is a good thing. If this relic is a fake then what is it a fake of? Has anything like it ever been "unearthed before?" It definitely has a more primitive type of Latin and design but we should remember that these men (possibly Templar Knights) were out in the middle of nowhere and probably living a primitive existence. Survival was no doubt their main focus and learning formal Latin was perhaps low on their list of things to do. Who knows, maybe their version of Latin was an earlier more primitive form of this old language. The real question we should be asking ourselves is why were they here in the first place? If the main purpose of the Knight's Templar was to protect Christians while making their pilgrimage to Old Jerusalem, then why were they here in America?
Reply
10/14/2013 11:30:16 pm
No, Bonnie, it's not "primitive" Latin. Early Latin was from before 600 BCE. These artifacts are allegedly from 700 CE and later--which should be in Classical or Vulgar Latin, neither of which they are. They are ungrammatical hodgepodges of excerpts from textbooks.
Reply
ryan
6/5/2019 12:56:08 am
If Templars were in Arizona, where did they live? There is no evidence of any type of settlement nor any remains. As to their use of Latin. Um, Latin pre-dates the Templars by thousands of years and if it was an "earlier" form, then Latin scholars would recognize it's forms. And he said HE KNOWS FOR A FACT that Templars were here in the early 14th century because he's been studying some runes. But again, he has no background in history or Latin or anything else but why hasn't any other historian come forward to collaborate his claim? Because they can't or won't becuase it's not true.
Reply
Bonnie
10/15/2013 05:32:24 am
Jason - That is your opinion and it is sad that you seem to be so..........intent on shooting down the opinions of others if it does not agree with yours when much of the history of Meso-America is still being researched and discovered. If and when the truth is revealed about the real origins of many of the ancient rock art symbols here I believe it will literally blow your socks off and that is my opinion.
Reply
10/15/2013 06:14:02 am
So just to be clear: You are saying your opinion is valuable, and Scott Wolter's opinion is valuable, but mine is not because you disagree with it. Therefore, opinions are beneficial and "open" only when they agree with your ideas. Thanks for clearing that up.
Reply
ryan
6/5/2019 12:58:58 am
That's what she's saying. I hate this show and as I have argued, he has no background in history. He just said AD was used in 800 A.D. Yes and no. It was JUST BEGINNING to be used by everyone because of Charlamagne, so the likelyhood that it would be used on a sword is unlikely.
Bonnie
10/15/2013 05:47:19 pm
This is your website Jason but obviously it is more of a one sighted blog than a discussion board and a big waste of time.
Reply
10/15/2013 11:28:46 pm
Well, it is my website for my own work, so yes, it is my viewpoint. There is a "Forum" conveniently labeled "Forum" (see links above) for open-ended discussion. It appears that you are looking for people to agree with you, and if that's the case, I can see how you would find it a waste of time to be confronted with disconfirming facts.
Reply
Bonnie
10/16/2013 12:48:43 pm
Overall, I have enjoyed reading the information you have presented on you website Jason and I think you spend a lot of time researching what you believe are the facts to substantiate your views on any given topic such as this one. Also, I have agreed with you on many points you have presented. However, I believe there are situations/events in Meso-American history where there is still very much to learn and understand that could possibly alter "history" as we know it. And none of us have really begun to figure it all out yet but thank-you for trying.
Reply
Kevbo
11/2/2013 07:50:52 pm
The neck's much too long, for one thing. Wolter should have pointed out that they didn't know about dinosaurs back then, so it must have been a dragon. Possibly a racist dragon.
Reply
Lowell
1/1/2014 01:35:37 pm
Actually there is a good chance, people have seen dinosaurs down to the first century. There are many artifacts found that portray dinosaurs but of course the academic establishent will never accept them as evidence because they go against what is widely accepted by the scientific community. The Smithsonian is one good example ... They do have a reputation of hiding away or ( perhaps) destroying evidence that don't seem to fit with what they want to believe .
Reply
1/1/2014 01:48:24 pm
The reputation you reference is entirely the invention of David Childress, in 1993. I wrote about it on my blog yesterday (12/31/13).
Reply
Phillip C
1/4/2014 04:44:12 pm
First off, I have not read the rest of the discussion board, as it is lengthy and can be quite redundant; and I am sure I am contributing to said redundancy, my apologies. I definitely share the suspicions as to the "dinosaur" on the artifacts. However, I cannot dismiss the formations of minerals upon the artifacts. I also cannot for the life of me understand, in any case, why such a dinosaur or indigenous lizard would even be on there in the first place. Point being: do I possibly believe the artifacts are part of a hoax? No. Why? Because all the other evidence surrounding the artifacts are sound. If the only critique is that of the "dinosaur," and Wolter's lack of info concerning it, then I don't think that is sound evidence proving him wrong. Am I saying it proves him right? No. Am I saying you need a more solid argument to prove him wrong. Albeit, right now the scale seems to tip in Wolter's favor.
Reply
Phillip C
1/4/2014 04:53:44 pm
And with my last sentence, more redundancy...lol
Reply
Sharon Lammers one of the Origian owners of the swards and one who helped make them )
4/19/2014 01:51:36 am
I was not a hoax, We were told if we did the same thing that the Christians did and made a pilgrimage in the name of our lord then we would be saved and would not have to go to those Government Native America Boarding Schools and I wouldn't have to lose my big brother and we could go home to our dad! Then when it looked like we were going to make it, the Government and others that didn't like Indians stopped us and told Charlie that he was needed somewhere else and that if he did then he would be able to help our Tribe better and the rest of them too! They lied to all of us and made promises they had no intention of keeping!
Reply
Andrew
9/2/2015 09:41:15 am
You must not have read the review either. Because Wolter Provided absolutely zero evidence. no data to check to prove his analysis of minerals on the artifact he didn't provide the rate at witch hose minerals form or the variables such as rain fall. so all we have is Wolter's word which if you read the review he outright lied and excluded other information in the episode. so you don't believe it was a hoax because the rest of the evidence is sound? there wasn't any other evidence just statements Wolter made that have no data to back them up just a supposed expert opinion from someone who isn't an actual expert.
Reply
julie
1/5/2014 06:36:26 am
Jason, Thank you very much for answering many of the questions I had whilst watching this crazy show. I was amazed to see how many people are actually watching it. I guess we were all hoping for something that deals with these mysteries with more integrity. I guess you can't find that on TV and the internet is also, often times, riddled with the same dishonesty or lack or rationale. But thank gawd for the internet where regular folks can, at least, find facts together. While looking for further info on this episode and others, I came across this Wiki page....not that Wikipedia is always perfectly true either but it said much of what you outlined. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tucson_artifacts
Reply
Bonnie
1/11/2014 05:01:12 am
Perhaps we are all missing the point - Scott Wolter is a professionally trained forensic geologist and there is no doubt that he knows his stuff when determining the particulars of ancient geology. Is he a trained professional archeologist, anthropoligist, or art historian, no. However, he is human like the rest of us and is no doubt trying to connect the dots from what he has uncovered during his investigations and all the other information out there in regards to America's ancient past. Change is never easy but I for one am trying to keep an open mind in regards to knowing the true history of ancient America especially if the dots are starting to connect.
Reply
Mr. Hardcastle
2/1/2014 02:22:57 pm
So Bonnie, are you open minded to the idea that these artifacts could be fake? That the limestone deposits could be man made? That the Latin carved on the pieces could have been copied (in some parts, verbatum) from a textbook that wasn't around in 800 AD? I undestand your open minded to the idea that they could be real, and I'm not saying they are absolutely fake, but they could be.
Reply
Sharon Bankhead Lammers
4/19/2014 02:01:12 am
And it was the daughter and son of an Geologist and one of the ones that helped gather the stones and the would and make it then we were also the ones that they made cover up what we did and they even had that mad dig up the dirt and soil need to make it look older then it was!
Reply
ryan
6/5/2019 01:04:23 am
He's not connecting any dots. He doesn't have any other experts come in to back up his claims, nor does he show any of his research. All he does is spout off claims and then say he's correct.
Reply
Educated One
4/12/2014 03:55:34 am
Actually, Freemasonry has a publication they put out periodically called the Knights Templar. Most masons I have met do believe they came from the Knights Templar. Of course, if all of his friends are masons, it makes sense that he feels correct in his assertions. Masons have many many strange stories which are highly historically inaccurate which they tell their fellow brothers.
Reply
scott shumaker
4/12/2014 07:50:39 am
Taking as an axiom that the artifacts are real, the lizard hypothesis seems more reasonable than a dinosaur surviving until the period in question.
Reply
sharon Lammers
4/19/2014 01:44:12 am
yes and no, not sure how to explain it for until about a year ago I had forgotten about it and then didn't want to deal with the memories of what they did to me and the other children involved in making and then being made to bury them AND THEN MADE TO LIE ABOUT WHAT HAPPEN AND THEN MADE TO FORGET! This world isn't what it seams and not every thing that is new is fake just depends on how you look at it! Just because we were children didn't mean our cause was any less important then an adults back then! THEY DIDN'T WANT US TO BE ANYTHING BUT SLAVES AND CHILDREN THAT DID AS WE WERE TOLD!
Reply
4/19/2014 02:20:05 am
Given that the objects were found in the early 1920s, it is rather remarkable that you are so technologically savvy for a woman in her late 90s or early 100s.
Sharon Euleen Mea Bankhead/Lammers
4/14/2014 01:27:59 pm
been there done that! and i know more of the truth about the swords!
Reply
Eric Rollins
4/22/2014 04:39:55 pm
It bothers me so many people are so close minded, What I take away from shows like this is that scientific dogma is just as bad as religious dogma. Theories are taken as facts and facts are ignored if they don't fit an "excepted" theory. Just pick up any general science text book from the 1950 or 60s and be amazed at what was considered factual enough to be included in a textbook of all places. Question so called facts, don't just dismiss things out of had.
Reply
4/24/2014 03:42:26 am
I know where it came from and the young man that owned it! And most of the words and symbles on them are from stuff we were to remember and where we were to go! some of it had to do with the stuff stolen from Native America Indians because their children were used as bait/pawns/hostages durning the time around the second Wounded kneee2 Trail of Tears..And in one of the Naitve American Indian shot films/Documentrys i have already see the young man that owns it and we were told that those things would get found in our lifetime so no matter what we remembered wouldn't help by the time they were found!
Reply
Bonnie
4/28/2014 10:54:57 am
Hi Sharon (Lillie),
Reply
mike
9/3/2014 09:52:18 pm
the program does leap to conclusions in order to support a theme decided before evidence is even examined. but, dimissing the intire concept (if not the whole series) over a forked tongue seems a bit childish.
Reply
Bonnie
3/6/2015 02:16:09 pm
Seems there were lots of people in Meso-America who were not supposed to be here such as the Hebrews who left an ancient inscription of the Ten Commandments (Los Lunas Inscription) in what is now New Mexico. If the truth be known probably all of our oldest ancestors had a connection to North and South America.
Reply
Dennis Martinez
5/5/2015 04:11:47 pm
All this argument over a tv show. Simply Google Tucson relics and do your own research. You will quickly find that Wolter left out alot of facts.
Reply
Bonnie
5/27/2015 03:09:44 am
yes, I agree with Dennis. However, once you have begun your research and the dots begin to connect its probably time to start the reality check on any given subject. If one has done any research at all on the Essene priests of (50 BC - 50 AD) Qumran, it seems apparent that their influence would have been world-wide not excluding all future Popes both Byzantine and Roman. They divided up their organization East, West, North and South into specific districts giving them each an animal name, one of which was that of the dragon. A faction were warrior priests and the money changers of their world much like the Knights Templar would be hundreds of years later. I believe it is all relative.
Reply
Joe Brenner
11/6/2015 08:08:40 am
Research the appearance of all Southwest lizards none, not one, stands on top of its four legs like an elephant rather than having its legs splayed out like a crocodile, nor has its tail held horizontally, sweeping upward, off the ground. Neither does any Southwest lizard have a large humped-up back, nor a very long, snake-like, neck ending in a small head. Or, has a head not aligned with the neck like a snake or lizard, but connected to the neck at a 90 degree angle.— In order to produce the figure, the carver must have seen a living dinosaur only 1,215 years ago. Popular history desperately needs to be rewritten. 65,000,000 years needs to be subtracted from it.
Reply
sage
1/4/2016 10:39:11 pm
these are very outdated images of dinosaurs
Reply
3/20/2016 01:04:16 am
Da tristeza que el canal H2 le de cabida a teorias geologicas no comprobadas y de esa manera engañe a los televidentes,Eso, los mayas de Minnessota y los vikingos de Georgia o North Carolina son pamplinas de mal gusto.Sin embargo Leif Ericson y Eric El Rojo sì llegaron a Groenlandia en el s X AD (anno domine) o CE (Christ Era)
Reply
mark
9/22/2017 09:12:09 pm
i have just read many of the comments here and it seems you all miss a couple things. first who can say how long this group was here? perhaps several generations where hebrew and latin were conjoined into thier common language and as there is no other evidence of them its probable they did not have language class.
Reply
Your comment will be posted after it is approved.
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorI am an author and researcher focusing on pop culture, science, and history. Bylines: New Republic, Esquire, Slate, etc. There's more about me in the About Jason tab. Newsletters
Enter your email below to subscribe to my newsletter for updates on my latest projects, blog posts, and activities, and subscribe to Culture & Curiosities, my Substack newsletter.
Categories
All
Terms & ConditionsPlease read all applicable terms and conditions before posting a comment on this blog. Posting a comment constitutes your agreement to abide by the terms and conditions linked herein.
Archives
November 2024
|