Home > Ron Wyatt > Long-standing libel from AIG against Ron Wyatt and his partners, refuted

Long-standing libel from AIG against Ron Wyatt and his partners, refuted

Ron Wyatt (wearing a hat)

[There is an update to my investigation of Ron on the bottom]

I’ve repeatedly warned AIG to stop libeling Ron Wyatt or I would remove my links to their site and refute their dumb divisive libel in public. I gave them over two years to stop libeling him and they’ve refused to listen. So, as I told them I would do, I’ve removed the link to their site which I had in my link list and will now refute them in public, which I also told them I would do:

Concerning Ron, AIG says:

Adventurers down through history have made spectacular claims about the discovery of all kinds of biblical sites or ‘holy’ relics.

The holy grail, the fabled King Solomon’s Mines, and more recently, Noah’s Ark, the Ark of the Covenant, and many more have featured in fabulous tales of adventure and discovery.

My reply: WHO CARES, THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH RON. Fail number one, fail two coming up:

Adolf Hitler was allegedly in possession of what he believed was the ‘holy lance,’ the spear used by the centurion to pierce Christ’s side. This was only one of many relics der Führer obtained (or sought) to satisfy his obsession with the occult. Interestingly, several such ‘genuine’ spears are owned by various collectors around the world.

And that has what to do with Ron? Fail three:

Not surprisingly, the cup Christ used at His Last Supper, dubbed the ‘holy grail,’ is also simultaneously in the possession of several people at different locations. It has even had a movie based on it: Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade.

Rant much? Fail four:

Then there are pieces of wood ‘from the actual cross of Christ.’ In the fourth century, Helena, the Roman Emperor Constantine’s mother, made a pilgrimage to the Holy Land. ‘There with a rapidity and assurance that can only strike wonder in the modern archaeologist, legend has it that she unearthed the True Cross, the lance, the crown of thorns, and identified, under a temple of Aphrodite, the tomb of Christ.’

Cool man thanks for the history facts, but what the Hell your narcissistic ranting have to do with Ron, time-waster? I wonder if an Arminian wrote this article. Fail five (probably):

Could the garden of Eden ever be found?

The Bible says regarding the location of Eden: ‘And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted, and became into four heads’ (Genesis 2:10). Two of these rivers are called Hiddekel (Tigris) and Perath (Euphrates).

Fail, fail, fail, fail, faaaaaaail.

This is why many Christians believe that the original garden was located somewhere in the Mesopotamian region (around present day Iraq) where the modern Tigris and Euphrates rivers flow. However, the Bible records a devastating worldwide Flood, many centuries after Adam and Eve were expelled from the Garden. Sedimentary layers, sometimes miles thick, bear mute testimony to this massive watery upheaval which tore apart and buried forever the pre-Flood world.

That’s fail six, now seven:

After the Flood, the survivors moved to the plain of Shinar…

My mouth was literally hanging open when I saw how this ranting continued. But I’ll shorten if for you to spare you from resorting to suicide:

The Wyatt/Gray claims are truly astonishing (see Amazing claims).

No thanks, I’ve already had enough of your Amazing Ranting.

Unfortunately, reputable Bible-believing archaeologists and other experts willing and capable of giving an objective assessment are never able to check out the claimed artifacts.

Well cuz u said so Mr. Reputable Is Only Who I Say Is Reputable.

There is generally a plausible-sounding story as to why that is impossible, or why the time is not right. The alleged finding of the Ark of the Covenant (see also The Ark of the Covenant—could it even be found?)


is associated with claims of supernatural intervention, photographs mysteriously getting fogged or vanishing, and ‘Men in Black’ style government cover-ups.

You’re ranting is also foggy and how many people see you, the man who ranted this article?

Are the claims true? If they are, such a staggeringly impressive list would mean that Ron Wyatt had been almost as miraculously assisted by God as the patriarch Moses.


If, however, a careful examination of just one or two of these claims reveals them to be false, fanciful or fraudulent, the ‘divine leading’ option evaporates, and it is clear that Christians are being seriously misled.

Who cares about “if”s, get to the point long-winded man in black. On the same page there is a photograph of a fat middle-aged guy with glasses, which under him says,

Well-known creationist geophysicist Dr John Baumgardner, a scientist at Los Alamos Laboratories respected for his work on plate tectonics. He is known for his strong stand on the truth of Genesis. He researched the ‘Ark-site’ with Wyatt and eventually concluded the claims were ‘bogus.’

Who? Well that’s enough for me! If John Baugermeister, geophysiscist respected at Los Alamos Labs respected for his work on plate tectonics (geeeeeeeeeeeee wiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiizzzzzzzzzzzzzzz! YEEEEE HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAW!!!!!!!) says it’s “bogus” then I believe him! I don’t think so.

At the bottom of the evolutionist-imitation rant, a rant no doubt to win the respect of evolutionists (pandering is puke), it has as a reference:

An avid disciple of Gray/Wyatt in South Australia told Answers in Genesis of a phone call from Ron Wyatt confirming that he had the Ten Commandments in his possession, and would release them at some future time when believers were about to be persecuted. We expressed surprise that someone would, if the claim were true (bolding by Knight), be sitting for the last few years on such a priceless treasure, with its enormous value to Christianity, in his garage, as it were.

You sure like “if”s. And what is your evidence that an “avid disciple” said this, and why would it matter? And who said it was in his garage, idiot? And if it were in a garage, what would that matter, you libelers who forget that God lived in a tent for forty years in a barren desert ALONG WITH THE PRECIOUS TEN COMMANDMENTS, MANNA AND STAFF OF MOSES WHICH WERE ALSO INSIDE A HUMAN-MADE OBJECT WHICH WAS INSIDE A SPACE MUCH SMALL THAN A “LOWLY” GARAGE. And this same God took on a lowly plain-looking human body which he allowed to be hung and nailed to a lowly wooden cross on almost level ground (rather than “high up” as is falsely portrayed in many pictures), and allowed his head to be punched, and thorns wrapped around it, and allowed his body to be stripped naked in public, spit on,  speared, and after being tortured to the point where he could no longer be recognized, died in unimaginable agony, for countless sins of people who hated him, and later was resurrected, with the ressurrection event being recorded on some lowly cloth? And this same God lives and works in lowly humans who work in the lowliest garages and lowliest places, even when they are trapped in lowly prisons. God made possible garages and everything else which resulted from his creation. He has protected his works in lowly items for thousands of years in lowly caves, allowing precious long copies of his works to be fragmented into thousands of pieces by lowly men, discovered by lowly men, and pointed out by lowly men and preached by lowly men. God is not an elitist, rather,

“Rejoice greatly, O Daughter of Zion! Shout, Daughter of Jerusalem! See, your king comes to you, righteous and having salvation, gentle and riding on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey. He looks upon the lowly, but the proud he knows from afar. He lives in a high and holy place, but also with him who is contrite and lowly in spirit, to revive the spirit of the lowly and to revive the heart of the contrite. He chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. He chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things—and the things that are not—to nullify the things that are, so that no one may boast before him. Our citizenship is in heaven. And we eagerly await a Savior from there, the Lord Jesus Christ, who, by the power that enables him to bring everything under his control, will transform our lowly bodies so that they will be like his glorious body.”

“For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God’s sight. As it is written: ‘He catches the wise in their craftiness'” – 1 Corinthians 3:19

“For it is written, ‘I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart.’ Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?” – 1 Corinthians 1:19-20

“For the foolishness of God is wiser than man’s wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man’s strength.” – 1 Corinthians 1:25


Last year, I found a site claiming that Ron was a King James Onlyist, and some I know are cultists, like Harold Camping and those who follow him. Cultists also in that they worship the style of the3 words rather than obeying them. They fit perfectly those whom God say treat him like a beautiful song, but their heart is not with him. Anyways, I emailed Ron, or thought I was, and found out he had died. Instead I had gotten in touch with some female companion of his who didn’t answer me at first for a very long time, or rather took forever to after first giving me some vague arrogant-like response, at least it seemed arrogant to me. But eventually she replied saying the delay was because she had been busy, and if I remember right, because she wasn’t familiar with email much. But so I asked her if Ron was a KJV Onlyist, because if he was, it would make doubtful that he really had divine guidance from God in finding the Ark of the Covenant, not that he actually found it, that wouldn’t surprise me, but that God would bless a cultist is what I would have a hard time believing. She claimed that he wasn’t as far as she knew. Then I asked her about AIG’s claim that someone from Ron’s house or whatever had claimed the AOC was in his garage, and she said she didn’t know about that article nor about anyone who made such a claim. So then of course I asked where the Ark was, and the film of it, and she said that it was still where he had found it. I asked why he didn’t take the film with him, and she claimed that an angel told him to keep it there. That sounds suspicious to me, but now that I write that, I can see why God wouldn’t want the film to get out, because if it did, the Muslims might try to get it and the whole world might turn to God if they saw who knows what miracles happening, especially being that Jesus’ blood is on it, and it was dangerous to mishandle before, and how much more with the sacrificed blood of God’s one and only son on it. And according to Jesus, God doesn’t want the whole world to turn to him, he wants to condemn it. So of course, such an incredible film would likely never been seen till Jesus returned. But that brings up a possible argument: If God doesn’t want the planet turning to him, why would Jesus return to rule for 1000 years at which point there would be zero doubt, or at least after demonstrating who he was, that God was real, his Son is real and Judgement Day would come some time after 1000 years? A reasonable answer is that by the time Jesus returns, the amount of people going to Hell will be so large, that even if 20 billion new people were born in that 1000 years (thanks to the peace brought by Jesus and I imagine will happen, him healing many many wounded and sick people), that there would still be perhaps something like 120 billion people who will have already had their fate sealed by the time he gets back. But there’s still another argument that can be made against the Bible: according to Revelation a huge amount of people will still rebel at the end of the thousand years, and even before that it says there will be rebellious leaders that Jesus will crush along with their rebellious armies, like Moab, whoever they are, on top of that, Satan isn’t even around to tempt anyone. What I imagine is that Jesus will leave for an unknown amount of time after the 1000 years, and like Revelation says, Satan will be released, tempt various nations to rebel and then they will attack Israel (again) or rather Jerusalem. But there’s still two more arguments that can be made: 1) The Bible seems to imply, at least to me, that Jesus will make a spectacle of these leaders who rebel against him, not simply return and smash them and then all the sudden it’s Judgment Day with no one to ponder Christ’s power. 2) How is it anyone will not have turned to God and be open to Satan’s temptation enough to become coldly murderous if Satan was sealed away and Jesus was in front of everyone showing himself invincible? My answer to the first argument applies to the second, so I only need give one argument, which is that during Jesus’ time, he performed miracles, and entire cities who knew about it and who had plenty of witnesses among them to testify about them still would not turn to him, at least most of the cities wouldn’t. Jesus condemned such cities, saying their punishment would be greater than that of Sodom and Gomorrah. He also urged people to at least believe in the miracles he did even if not putting their trust in him. I suppose he said that because he was hoping that they would eventually realize he must have been of God. Jesus also said that some people, if they wouldn’t accept the Law of Moses as being from God, wouldn’t even be convinced by a ghost warning them about Hell/that God was real and would punish people for disobeying Moses/God’s Law. So, even great miracles and miraculous things aren’t enough to convince CERTAIN people, because Scripture implies that they are too far gone, have been raised in too bad a way, and that God, hating such people, hardens their heart at times to prevent them from even coming close to asking God genuinely for forgiveness. So then, God kept the film in the cave with the Ark because of his hatred for certain people, evil ones, not wanting them to come close to being forgiven. But if not, then the other argument is that God simply doesn’t want wicked people to get their hands on his son’s blood or the Ark, and want’s them both to stay there, and as a witness for future generations. But that still leaves a a possible argument: why did Jesus then perform miracles in front of the Pharisees if he didn’t want them to turn to God? But the Bible never says he did, and seems to imply he refused to. So then, it’s likely God doesn’t want the Rabbis, not yet at least, to see the Ark, or to get their hands on Jesus’ blood, and they might also in their hatred attempt to wipe or burn the blood off. To do such a thing might provoke tremendous wrath from God, fire might come down from Heaven and should the world hear of it, they might gloat, something which God also doesn’t want, but also as I said before, because God doesn’t want the world to turn to him (and seeing him so to speak, attacking the Jews, might get them to, at least, come close to turning to him). But still, Jesus was saying he didn’t want the Pharisees to come close to forgiveness, not the entire world. He did however say that he was thankful that Spirit was kept from the world and that the things of God were hidden from them. So, it can still be argued that God doesn’t want the world to come close to turning to him, and a tremendous miracle would do that. But it can be argued: “The world isn’t wicked like the Pharisees, so why does God care so much if they see miracles and get saved or not, at least this generation?” But that would be wrong: According to the Bible the last days will be worst than even during those before the Flood. The reason why is because God’s word is everywhere, teachers of it are everywhere, miracles still do happen, though they must be searched out usually to confirm they happened, and there are mountains of archeological and natural evidences to support the Bible, yet the world in general still rebels against God, and many of them knowingly do so, meaning they know the Bible is true, but do as they please anyways. The Pre-flood world didn’t have preachers everywhere, didn’t have the huge amount of evidence showing the Bible was true like this world does. They didn’t have 6,500 years to look back on to say, “Nothing the world is doing is getting them eternal peace or even close to it, the only ones who appear to be coming close are certain Christians.” So, God does see this world as wicked, and anyone who knew about the great amount of evidence for the Bible, but rejected God anyways. So, to summarize that stream of consciousness rambling-like paragraph:

1) God doesn’t want the ark to be handled or the blood of Christ, out of hatred for the Rabbis and anyone else deliberately rejecting his word, because both things are holy to him.

2) God hates the wicked and in general and realizes certain ones among them will come close to turning to him on their own, and perhaps doesn’t want that to happen because he would feel obligated in then helping them to genuinely turn him, or simply because he just doesn’t want them to do anything honorable like that. That may sound cruel, but, consider: Do very evil people deserve extremely strong evidence that God exists and should be obeyed? Or imagine it this way: Imagine Hitler, the Pharisees or Pol Pot, or Stalin, after mocking God, boasting all day long about how great they are and how stupid and useless God is, and killing people for fun and without feeling any guilt, suddenly said to God, “God, come on, show me you exist, at least show me this supposed Ark of the Covenant, then I will believe and follow you.” Would you, if you were God, give in? Would you smile and say, “Oh how great of you to ask me that, I’ll forget about our mass murders and your lack of conscience and lack of repentance, here, here’s the Ark, get your hands all over it, do whatever you like with it, I’m sure you’ll do good with it since you claim you’re believe in me and do what I ask when you see it.” In other words, such people don’t deserve the chance to see something so great, or at least, God doesn’t want the ones of these evil times to see them (meaning since the Catholics declined in military power and peaceful Christianity spread all over the world and enlightening it by doing so making them more responsible for their sins).

3) Muslims might simply destroy it in fear of it being used as evidence that they are trespassing on God’s land or that their religion is false, and also perhaps out of fear the Jews would use it as a supernatural weapon against them. So what good would it do to allow such precious things to be exposed if Muslims would simply destroy it, perhaps before the Ark and blood could even be photographed. And if that did happen, the scoffers of the world might mock all the more, infuriating God so much so that he would act before the time of his revenge, and so breaking his prophecies.

There was something she sad that deeply troubled me though. When I asked her why Ron didn’t make a rubbing of the tablets (I think I asked her that), or copy what they said (or maybe I asked her what language they were written it, I still have the actual correspondence but am too miserable and tired to go into my email and read it), she claimed that Ron told her it was written in “proto-Aramaic” and that he didn’t want to talk about the tablets. Now THAT is suspicious. WHY would you not want to talk about one of the greatest discoveries in the 6,500 year history of the world!? What!? And apparently she didn’t ask him further why not. Talk about weak. So then, me wondering how old Aramaic was, looked very hard to see when it came about, and amazingly found no information except a hint on some page on the Internet somewhere, which if I remember right, indicated it didn’t start till around the time of King Solomon, that’s a long way off from the time of Moses. More than 1000 years later at least. So then I emailed her again and told her that. I also said that Ron may have been trying to show off, acting like he was wise, but then when asked about it (later?) by this woman (I think she told me she asked him about it later) said he didn’t want to talk about it because he realized his proto-Aramaic response was totally false and unbelievable and didn’t want her to realize that, and didn’t want to admit he’d made such a great failing over a discovery that was inexcusable to lie concerning. Her response? It was that she’d gotten my email and would no longer be replying to ANY emails, but would read any further ones. I’m guessing my revelation hurt her, and she was shocked Ron would have told such a wrong lie too, and over something that shouldn’t have been put into doubt. So now, it looks very possible, that if Ron were given to fibbing, even making absurd fibs, that he may have told someone the tablets were in his garage after all. Also the responses of this woman were bizarre being that these were not things to be secretive about since if they are true would give the validity of the Bible a tremendous boost (hence my anger at her for not replying to me right away). But can Ron’s discoveries be trusted, even if he did make two absurd fibs, and perhaps others not known about? From the video I saw, I would say absolutely yes. I also saw and heard of a pastor who was clearly humble and in his right mind, and no idiot, who confirmed Ron’s finds in Israel. It wasn’t some vague story he was telling either, but plenty detailed. I wonder if the garage remark may have been a joke, or if Ron was serious about it (as in seriously lying, just like his proto-Aramaic remark, which by the way there is only one witness for, one who acts suspicious herself) was lying out of anger that God hadn’t let him take them out to show to the world being that he had worked very hard to get to them, and because a few miracles had even occurred that had helped him to get to them. He may have thought, “Why would God have sent an angel to bless me (or perhaps it wasn’t blessing Ron but rather the woman who was helping him dig to the Ark and the Australian pastor who accompanied him), and why would he have killed a man who stood in my way, allowed me to film the Ark and even photograph it, only to obscure the photos, have me leave the film in the cave, and the Ark and everything in it?” After some time he may have become bitter, lying in jest out of bitterness perhaps, and feeling short-changed and like the world wasn’t paying enough attention to him, told a silly lie about what language the tablets were written in, hoping to get some wow out of the woman he lied to to make himself feel better. That seems like the most likely explanations to me, and it sickens me to think they might be true. If the woman who told me this is lying about what Ron said, I’m sure she will have Hell to pay, being that she never took back what she said, at least not to me.

  1. SW Knight
    March 27, 2011 at 9:03 AM

    The New Age Christians just love to have Millions and Billions of years before the Garden of Eden and therefor they believe “there was death before sin a clear falsehood and heresy.”

    Since Joesephus mentions they all went to see the ark around the time of The LORD JESUS CHRIST we have to assume it was accessible.

    The scientists no matter whom they are just hate it when GOD chooses someone else to find what they would sell their soul for: and, sadly, they in their condemnation of truth drive away many children of GOD to believe in their heresies.

    • March 27, 2011 at 11:21 AM

      AIG aren’t “long-agers” (a term I hate since it confuses the verse that says that the earth shall wax old, ironically they are actually short 500 years, as they keep saying 6000, when correct calculations bring it to about 6,500), though I did find out, to my surprise, that John Ankerberg is. In the case of Ron Wyatt, I think AIG is jealous, and trying to look credible by looking and sounding like those “wise” skeptics and Mainstreamers.They shouldn’t be trying to imitate them if that’s the idea behind letting this guy rant on their site about Ron.

  2. David
    March 21, 2012 at 11:03 AM

    Could it have been Jewish Aramaic(Hebrew)? That appears to be much older, and would fit his description.

    • March 21, 2012 at 11:09 AM

      I’ve never heard of Hebrew being described as “Jewish Aramaic” and sounds just as nonsensical to me as what this friend woman of his claimed. Aramaic is Aramaic, it’s a language that didn’t exist till at least hundreds of years after Moses’ time. Notice when Moses lived and when Aramaic was used:


    • March 22, 2012 at 12:31 PM

      A little while after you emailed me, I started thinking about something, that being he/she said “proto”. I thought that was absurd at first, but then i remembered that a new language doesn’t get started right away usually, and that Ron may simply made a wrong assumption, rather than trying to embellish, and perhaps realized he had made a leap, and didn’t want to have to deal with that and appear to be silly.

  1. May 16, 2010 at 6:45 PM

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: