"THE EXODUS REVEALED" VIDEO

PaulK, there is one name that Wyatt/Moller supporters throw around quite a bit - Dr. Nassif Mohammed Hassan. But there is a minor oddity. They usually refer to him as the 'director of Antiquities in Cairo' (note the lower case on 'director'), and say that he identified one of the chariot wheels brought to him (which supposedly disappeared mysteriously). But a Google search reveals no reference to a Dr. Nassif Mohammed Hassan OTHER THAN sites related to the Gulf of Aqaba controversy. This is odd given that we are told he is an important official.Now, I focus in stuff on different continents, so I'm not all that familiar with famous Egyptologists short of Zahi Hawass. Can any of the more knowledgeable people here tell me who Nassif Mohammed Hassan is/was, and what his exact position and credentials are/were?I'd like Lys to explain something as well. I was treated to an interesting story at another forum regarding why Wyatt and Moller have disregarded the fundamental practices of archaeology and either not kept records of precisely what was found were (in other words, excavation maps and schematics) or have decided not to release that crucial information. So, Lys or one of the other believers, why do they refuse to give us that information? After all, we're told that the chariots are all in a straight line from coast to coast, but we're not given the excavation records that would tell us not only where sites were found but also where no dives or excavation occured (which could have serious implications for assessments of the distribution of artifacts throughout the Gulf of Aqaba).I apologise if that question has already been adressed, but when I brought it up at another forum I was told that I was crazy for saying we needed the maps since nobody here had had a problem with the missing information, so I assume it has not been asked as of yet.

Thanks for the welcome, Lys. But I'm not here to debate the merits of SPSW. I look forward to your response to my questions (two of them, you'll notice).As for purchasing The Exodus Case: not going to happen until I see some real evidence. If it's good, solid archaeology, there are certain things we should see. Maps are one of those things. Until then, it joins 1421 and Chariots of the Gods in the list of books I will not purchase on principle: it only encourages more scammers, con artists, and flat-out poor archaeology. But I will keep my eyes open at the library.

Lys, you left the other debate before responding to this.

quote:

---

You didn't specify when you posted that list which theory of Wyatt's/Moller's those scientists supported, I was looking for some clarification. I still don't have it, though. Those are listed as 'contributing' to the videos/book, but the descriptions don't really provide much clue, although they seem to suggest that what they suggest was some basic Egyptological research common to the scientific community at large. I'll clarify: which scientists have said that they believe those chariot wheels are a) existant and b) Egyptian chariot wheels from the middle of the 18th Dynasty? That is, after all, the claim you've made, that there are Egyptologists backing those finds.

---

This is similar to PaulK's observation. Could you answer it this time?

Lys, please stop claiming a) that scientists are tools of the devil and b) that there is overwhelming evidence so our concerns don't matter, and actually answer my question. Which scientists, specifically (full name and verifiable credentials) have come out and said that they have seen these wheels in situ, that they are mid-18th dynasty artifacts, and that they are there as the result of the waters of the Red Sea crashing in on an army rather than chariots being lost overboard? Just, for once, answer that question without trying to divert attention with devil worshipping claims or comments about how it doesn't matter.

quote:

---

You want to know which scientists with full blown credentials state that these are chariot wheels from the drowned Egyptian army at the Exodus crossing from the 18th dynasty, right? Your answer: None that I know of. However, it surprises me that you continue to be locked on this question, as I have answered this question in other various forms in the past. However, not one, NOT ONE full blown credentialed scientist has disputed these claims as proven falseeither. Only other non-credentialed archaeologists/scientists have disputed them.

---

Burden of proof is not on those attempting to disprove. At least now you'll have to stop saying, "Egyptologists are starting to agree!" As for the math, the investigation, and the coincidental remains, I still have to ask: how do we know those remains are there? We don't have maps. If they are there, how do we know that they aren't all over the place, not just in that straight line? We don't have maps. How can Moller/Wyatt Archaeology Inc. claim to be pursuing reputable archaeology while disregarding the most basic fundamentals of the field? We don't have maps.And, just so that you know for the future, if you ever plan on writing serious works regarding history or archaeology for college/whatnot, Paramount Pictures, 20/20, and Unsolved Mysteries are NOT credible sources nor are they reliable determinants of anything archaeological. Use the AIA or Zahi Hawass, not movie execs. If I try to make a claim about the Bible's authenticity, would you accept my use of the re-animated corpse of Nostradamus as a reliable source?

quote:

---

The question to be asked is: Why haven't more archaelogists been curious enough to actually go observe and evaluate for themselves what's at the bottom of Aqaba. No, instead everybody sits on their rear wondering why this isn't making constant headlines. Because obviously nobody has the nerve to get the ball rolling.

---

Who would want to, though? You want archaeologists to get expeditions approved (these things aren't cheap), then go out and spend a few months examining Wyatt's/Moller's finds when A) Wyatt's associates have a history of witholding vital evidence from the scientific community B) Have a history of using extremely questionable, if not outright laughable techniques (the divining rod) C) Will continue to refuse the release of information given the reasons Lys has passed along for that refusal. So, in other words, experts should spend time and money to help people who are likely cons prove that finds they claim to have made are real, and then NOT PUBLISH VITAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL DATA because Wyatt's people don't want it released. The scientific community would therefore gain absolutely nothing (still vital data missing) and expend resources to do so.Wow.

quote:

---

You mean like when W.A.R. tried to get help from other expeditionary teams and they denied them help? Don’t quote me on this, but I heard somewhere that W.A.R. once tried to either contact the guy who was in charge of finding the Titanic with the submarines, or Jack Coustau. W.A.R. really wanted aid in getting into the deeper waters to see if there were remains washed by the current to the sides of the underwater bridge (or scrapeyard rather). No one seemed to show any interest in helping W.A.R. out.

---

Lys, you're beating a dead horse. Obviously Jaques Cousteau and Bob Ballard were unwilling to help. And that unwillingness stems directly from the points I raised, which interestingly enough you ignore completely save for the divining rod.

quote:

---

1. According to Saudi law, no coral is to be taken from the area, a classic catch-22.

---

Which does not address the points I raised. Furthermore, this is not an uncommon occurence in digs and can be worked around easily enough if you have a trained team. This is for all intents and purposes a totally meaningless statement on your part.

quote:

---

2. Although Ron did get away with bringing up the 8 spoke wheel, obviously the Egyptians were not very cautious in their handling of it. We have Nassif Hassan ON VIDEO TAPE stating that this was a wheel from the 18th dynasty Egypt. Ron left the coral covered wheel with the Antiquities, and since Nassif died, no one has been able to account for it. This has frustrated W.A.R., as they thought they could trust them. I have a feeling there is a lot of thieves in Egypt, and this wheel could have been considered a prize.

---

Which does not address the points I raised, once more. Further, we get back into the Indiana Jones nonsense you raised at SPSW. Lys, could you tell me about that whole bit where Wyatt was the target of other scientists' attempts to imprison him in Saudi Arabia?

quote:

---

3. The gold gilded wheel that lies at the bottom of Aqaba is still sitting there for three reasonsa) It was stuck, as if completely cemented into the sand b) It was extremely brittle, as the wood had deteriorated insideleaving only the gold shell c) W.A.R. did not have the funds nor the necessary equipment to properly dig up the wheel.

---

Which does not address the points I raised.

quote:

---

4. This IS the reason why W.A.R. has had to ask explorers/scientists for help to come THERE! W.A.R. CANNOT submit the chariot wheels to any other authorities, since it is illegal to bring them UP! How can you submit stuff that you can’t even touch? It was back in 78 when Ron made the FIRST right MOVE! He and his two sons went diving for the first time, and as soon as he came across that wheel, he did what he though was the best thing to do by submitting it to the Director of Antiquities in Cairo Egypt. I have even seen films where he is walking in the parking lot in front of the Antiquities buildings in Egypt.

---

You don't need to hand physical artifacts over to every scientist you want to have verify them. That's not what submitting evidence is. So, again, you totally ignore my points and instead chose to add meaningless statements on an entirely different topic while pretending to respond to me.

quote:

---

5. Whenever W.A.R. does ask for help, no one seems to act interested in it enough to respond. Most of these large-badge scientists are unbelievers, so it doesn’t seem surprising that they wouldn’t show much interest.

---

And, again, you ignore my comments and instead restate the issue, but this time with a flourish: the oft-heard but never-substantiated Big Atheist Conspiracy claim.

quote:

---

3) CLAIM THAT THE MOLECULAR FREQUENCY GENERATOR IS "DIVINING ROD": Page 29- Trying to claim that the molecular frequency generator is nothing but a "divining rod", they state:

​

"Qualified scientists have been independently consulted about this gadget, which is generally advertised in treasure-hunting magazines, not scientific journals. They are unanimous that there are no scientific principles employed. Indeed, two of these scientists built and tested working models. The results of this technique can hardly be considered trustworthy, that brass welding rods being used in essence as divining rods, similar to the use of a forked stick to search for water."

​

RESPONSE- In 1988, Ray Brubaker, of "God's News Behind the News" in St. Petersburg, FL., asked an electrical engineer to research Ron's claims. This independent, non-biased research on the part of Terry Johnson of Tampa, FL, included research on the molecular frequency generator.

​

"The device is essentially a frequency generator (Ron's first was a HeathKit) that is linked with a frequency counter - this enables the user to set different frequencies for the different types of metal the user wishes to locate. The signal is then amplified and propagated electromagnetically through the ground.

​

When it hits the target metal, this excites its electron spin resonance, and this resonance causes an electromagnetic disturbance which propagates from the target metal back to the sender. The user receives this electromagnet wave back onto his body.

​

In this device, the human body is used as a living conductor or antenna in the same way your reception improves when you touch the rabbit ears or antenna contact on the back of your television. The receiver holds in his hands, two wands that attract to each other when the electromagnetic field of his body is disturbed in the proper direction.

​

The human body has two electromagnetic fields - one positive, one negative. In Ron's case, he used a battery and coils to increase this body field. In the "Filter King" device,...the wands are specially selected to be more responsive to the electromagnet disturbance....

​

This device was invented by H. G. Heranimus, who worked for the government and patented the molecular frequency concept 11 years ago. He has since died and now others are manufacturing his invention."

​

Also, the EX NIHILO article condemning this device gives no names of the scientists who supposedly built and tested these devices. This instrument is not "divining" but works on very solid scientific principles. Many scientists, archaeologists, engineers, etc. use them. The molecular frequency generator we use is manufactured by Cochran and Associates of Bowling Green, Ky. and costs $6,500.00 -- quite a high price for a "divining rod".

​

Also, the location of metal on the site with the molecular frequency generator was identical to those located by ferromagnetic and pulse induction detectors, as well as the sub-surface interface radar. So, if you want to eliminate the molecular frequency generator scans, the results are still the same.

​

---------------------------------------------------------------------

​

Obviously, regardless how farcical and foolish the accusations regarding this divining rod may be, thickheaded individuals as yourself will continue to repeat this stupidity no matter how many times it has been thoroughly refuted

---

See PaulK's response.

quote:

---

The 5 points I mentioned earlier in this post should cover this. You seem to ignore the fact that W.A.R. has done everything they can to make this available to the public. They’ve documented every find, but are unable to bring it to the front. Seeing we have enough witnesses from simple adventurers and scientists alike that the wheels are down there, there should be no doubt whatsoever to their existence. It may be helpful to create a map as you demand identifying where each object has been spotted, but has it ever crossed your mind that perhaps the reason this has not been done is because the extremely strong current in Aqaba poses some difficulty?

---

They have not done everything they could because they have not provided the most basic archaeological evidence, a point you REPEATEDLY brush aside. The fact that there is a current does not affect this at all. All they need to do is mark down on a map where they find these things, it's not as though the current is sending the chariot wheels rolling along the bottom of the sea floor in some Looney Toones version of an archaeological excavation. Get a cheap GPS system, mark down the points on a map, present maps and detailed diagrams of finds, and boom, you have the basic evidence that is lacking and that will, if continuing in it's absence, mean that no professional is going to give more than a second's thought before declining to spend their time and resources diving.

quote:

---

We have the films, the pictures, and the testimonies. That should be enough to convince anyone. Plus, we have every reason to trust Dr. Lennart Moller. He is a credentialed scientists, although not in the particular field of archaeology. But then again, one should ask, does one need to be a credentialed scientists in the area of archaeology when it comes to marine biology?. This is one question you seem to completely ignore, as Lennart Moller has been trained in the field of Marine Biology. Not only that, he has brought his finds to other marine biologists, and has been able to successfully utilize his same approaches in the study of cells and DNA with that of the bones that have been excavated.

---

We may be able to trust him when he is dealing with cells in a lab. But being trained as a Marine Biologist means surprisingly little when you're dealing with things that a) were never alive and b) did not arise in a marine environment. That rather hampers the application of Marine Biology, wouldn't you say?

quote:

---

The particular knowledge needed in these areas tounderstanding underwater petrification (calcium carbonate replacement), understanding coral structures (identifying the difference between an object and a natural growth formation), understanding the size, shape, and numbers of spokes on chariot wheels, and understanding that they could have ONLY been Egyptian employed by their variety DOES NOT require an extensive amount of knowledge. You can be trained in these areas, but not necessarily credentialed for them.

---

Lys, you have a vast lack of knowledge when it comes to how science works. I can be an expert with a doctorate in Marine Biology, but that doesn't mean that just because I'm a scientist, I can read a dozen books and suddenly become a reliable archaeologist. That's precisely WHY degree programs are in place. It takes intensive training to become an expert in a scientific field. You just don't seem to understand that because to you a scientist is a scientist and it doesn't matter what field they study. There is a reason that credentials are important: it's not because you can put a Dr. before your name, it's because when you have that credential, others know that you've spent years of your life in focused study of the field at hand, learning from experts in the same field.Now, as that's over with, could you respond to my other points, those raised in the post you ignored except for the divining rod, before you continue to complain about how scientists are ignoring Wyatt/Moller?

quote:

---

Lame and you know it. None of the ones who have seen these discoveries for themselves would spend a fortune to visit sites that they know are fake. Enough evidence has been provided to excite an interest in it.

---

Apparently enough evidence has not been provided to excite academic interest.

quote:

---

You are so full of it. To begin with, you must think that money just falls from the sky to support private and small scale expeditions (you even admitted that it’s expensive for organizations)? Do you have no regard for the difficult and adverse circumstances that such a limited number of researchers must be subjected to for this kind of expedition?

​

Needless to say, it is vastly easier for reputable organizations to present a satisfactory amount of data for an expedition than for a team of unrecognized archaeologists to supply equally acknowledged information. Without any of the protection or support inherently granted in large scale expeditions to a foreign country, how do you expect them to have the ability to preserve every piece of evidence they find without disturbance or hostile circumstances to contend with? How callous and unsympathetic of you to pretend that these expeditions should afford equal luxury.

---

It's not that difficult to provide a map of explored sites.

quote:

---

You don’t seem to have a remote clue about how these men have dedicated their lives, finances and untold effort trying so perseveringly hard to show the world these things, only to be carelessly disparaged by those who are unwilling to investigate for themselves the substantial evidence to be had.

---

How careless of me. I'd forgotten the toil and anguish that has gone into this idealistic crusade. Run by Wyatt Archaeology, Inc. Which sells books. And videos. Yes, no profit at all to be made from this selfless endeavour.

quote:

---

Much crucial information for a number of these sites was lost due to robbers and militant men that are rampant in these countriesnot to mention a host of other things that I don’t have time to elaborate on in a detailed fashion.

---

Those things you don't have time to eleaborate on include some rather wild incidents in which Wyatt claimed to have been the target of archaeological conspiracies perpetrated by other Seventh Day Adventist 'scientists' and the Saudi government to cover up his finds - no, wait, claim them for themselves - no, wait, cover them up. Please, do elaborate on your Hollywood screenplay of an excavation history.

quote:

---

Again, you should realize that it is much easier for organizations to protect their material. How do you expect independent researchers to preserve everything without even sufficient protection in an unstable region? But notice that if they DON’T give everything on a silver platter (something virtually impossible to do without the proper means), the larger organizations dismiss them as fraudulent and unworthy of their time. Why are you so unwilling to see this?

---

What I'm seeing is that none of that applies to what really needs to be released to gain credibility: maps and diagrams of the finds. We're not talking about artifacts that will be spirited away to a Saudi safehouse. We're talking about simple maps.

quote:

---

The fact is, ENOUGH evidence and video has been presented that should stir more of an interest in these finds, instead people like you resort to the most prejudiced assumptions by insinuating that perhaps all these finds were fabricated. What a crock of foolishness and you know it.

---

I resort to the most basic of assumptions: if it looks like pseudo-science, and smells like a scam, it's somebody taking a page out of the Erich von Daniken textbook of archaaeology. Give me a map of where sites were found, where the team did and did not search, and I'll be willing to lend more credence up front to any claims Moller and the rest make. Until then, it's bad science at best.

quote:

---

think the above exemplifies all too strikingly well how grotesquely misconstrued and uninformed your arraignments are becoming.

​

Contrary to your beyond words the evaluation and ultimate identification of the site was confirmed repeatedly via the latest (up-to-date) and most advanced equipment then in availability. The site was also tested and verified by a number of independent archeological research organizations, including a completely unaffiliated Turkish funded one. They were also followed closely by ABC’s 20/20, and the data was presented as worth considering. ALL of the sources PROVED that the object WAS and IS indeed the remains of a huge ancient boat. The minor instance where the divining rod was employed (merely used in addition to the host of professional tests that were conducted) had NOTHING to do at all with proving the identity of the site. The actual occurrence of these legitimate procedures can be thoroughly documented with sources. I don’t know exactly when I can get this for you, as much of the info is provided on video and will need to be transcribed to a document-- but I suppose it could be collected with some effort---if you’re interested and sincere enough to know the truth about these discoveries, rather than clinging on to a bunch of mendacious second-hand accusations you’ve been so willing to disseminate without even carefully researching the matter for yourself.

---

I don't care if God himself came down from on high and told the AIA that the find was genuine. I want to know why ANY person who claims to be performing a scientific examination would use a divining rod to support their claims, whether in a primary or secondary role.

quote:

---

Again, all of your specious accusations don’t take into consideration any of the above in order to construct a legitimate case against these discoveries. The Likely cons insert only further demonstrates the persistence to excuse yourself from responsibility by invoking a prejudiced assumption in order to NOT have to investigate the matter further. This is not even to mention the fact that a HOST of solid archaeological evidence has been provided for EVERY discovery made by Wyatt (with the exception of the Ark of the Covenant, which has yet to be ratified) and by those that have contributed to the finds (keeping in mind your incessant denials and adamant insistence otherwise).

​

Ah, but it’s so much easier to take a detractor’s word for it than to actually apply yourself to honest verification. Why can’t you just be truthful to yourself and everyone here by just admitting that you don’t really have a leg to stand on.

---

Misdirection. Why can't you tell me why the most fundamental archaeological evidence - excavation maps and diagrams - have been either a) not produced by Moller's team or b) kept secret from the scientific community you expect to back Moller. That is, after all the matter I was discussing in the quote you responded to with this rant.

quote:

---

Wow is right. Words can’t do justice for my indignation at how untenable everything you’ve spouted has actually been. It doesn’t even endure under the most basic scrutiny. And pretending to know what you’re talking about only makes your case worse.

---

Everything I've 'spouted' has been virtually ignored by your entire response. Where are the maps? Why is a 'scientist' using a divining rod? Why should others spend their efforts and funds when Moller/Wyatt Inc. refuse to release vital information to the scientific community and the public at large? You've done nothing but avert attention to my apparent audacity in asking questions. And yes, I probably do pretend to know what I'm talking about when I discuss fundamental evidence for archaeological claims. Probably because archaeology is the major I'm working on at the moment.