Overview of the criticism of claims of Pam Dewey
Overview of the criticism of claims of Pam Dewey
Profile
Pam Dewey is writing a book. She has a web site which in a sense character assassinates an amateur archaeologist whose work has gotten some attention in Christian circles before his death in 1999. Unfortunately, after this lengthy long supposed unbiased expose of Ron Wyatt, we know very little about Pam Dewey except that she is interested in character assassination. We would like to know, for instance, what her philosophical point of view is. Is she a Christian, an atheist, an agnostic, a Lutheran, Baptist, etc. Will Dewey tells us? She seems to be interested in Wyatt’s theology, so we’re interested in hers.
Her comment on Wyatt’s Theology
Dewey calls attention to Wyatt’s theology. She says that he is a Seventh Day Adventist. She says that Wyatt’s ultimate goal was to “eventually persuade people to accept the claims of Seventh Day Adventism.” This is interesting in that some of Wyatt’s claims, such as Mt Sinai in Saudi Arabia were claims that were made long before Wyatt was even born. But to Dewey, somehow E.G.White was the source of this idea, even though scholars before her time had something to do with Mt Sinai being in Saudi Arabia. One wonders as to where Dewey is going with this. Is she saying that E.G. White wrote about the location of the chariot wheels in the Red Sea? If so, would Dewey like to cite the portion in White’s volumes that reference this? And what about the location of Noah’s Ark, and Sodom and Gomorrah? And speaking of which, does Seventh Day Adventist theology have an exclusive lock-up on Noah’s Ark and these other sites? It seems to me that all Protestant sects and even Catholics believe in these sites, and just because a Seventh-Day Adventist finds these things doesn’t mean they are invalid.
Dewey’s attempt at discussing Wyatt’s theology at the very start of her article is actually an attempt to divide Christians before the actual meat of the substance is discussed. In fact, Dewey doesn’t discuss the claims of Ron Wyatt, but avoids them. She, instead, inserts all the negative assertions made by critics at the start of the article, and refuses to include refutations to these points of views.
PAM DEWEY’S ANTI SCIENTIFIC APPROACH
Her anti-science point-of-view is clearly made known when she uses a logic fallacy called ad hominem. According to Websters, Ad hominem means: 1. appealing to prejudice and emotion rather than to reason 2 attacking the character, motives, etc. of an opponent rather than debating the issue on logical grounds.
Any student of logic would have read 1/3 of the beginning of Dewey’s subtle diatribe and would have rolled up her tractate into a ball and thrown it into the garbage. The reason being that Dewey was trying to excite passions and emotions in discussing Wyatt’s theology at the beginning. How would a Catholic react to knowing that Wyatt is a Seventh-Day Adventist, for instance? Incidentally, I am not a Seventh-Day Adventist. I am not a member of any church. I have attended numerous churches and fit in well with many of them. Frankly, if I was a Catholic, Baptist, or a Pentecostal, or for that matter, even a Jehovah Witness, I would have been happy to find out that Mt Sinai was discovered even if it took a faithful Seventh-Day Adventist to find it. So why does it matter to Dewey?
Dewey’s Anti-science Format
The proper format for science is the following.
1. State the claims of the proponent (Wyatt’s point of view).
2. Include the arguments in support of those views.
3. Provide the counter arguments from opponents of those (Wyatt’s) point of view.
4. Provide the rebuttals from Wyatt’s point of view.
5. Provide more arguments from opponents of Wyatt’s point of view.
This is the format that is legitimate and proper, because it gives proper weight to both points of views.
Now contrast this with Dewey’s method
1. Attacks Ron Wyatt personally with references to Indiana Jones “swashbuckling persona,” and references to SDA theology, which do not even have any relevance to the discussion. Ad hominem.
2. States the claims of Wyatt’s point of view, but no supportive arguments referenced.
3. Criticized Wyatt by references to Science Vs Ron Wyatt, without allowing us to know what Wyatt’s supportive arguments are. References made to Wyatt’s “getting the story straight” without any rebuttal allowed. Evidently, Pam Dewey, in her great wisdom, never sought to ask.
4. Goes into minute detail discussing all the rebuttal sites to Ron Wyatt, not mentioning any counterpoints whatsoever.
5. Never mentions the scientists who support Ron Wyatt. Akrem Akurgal, for instance.
6. Provides a link to purchase Standish, Russell R. and Colin D. book, but no link to the questions and answers book that is available at www.anchorstone.com. Pam Dewey seems to be unaware of the books existence, and the fact that Standishes book contains numerous errors therein. These errors will be addressed on this web site.
In Pam Dewey’s section on Ron Wyatt and Science, we find something strange. Much like the pot (Dewey) calling the kettle black. She says that Ron Wyatt did not practice science. This claim seems to hold up well in Dewey’s artificially created environment in which the reader basically is kept ignorant in regard to Wyatt’s work. Dewey’s only slight acknowledgement to science has to do with her mentioning the web site address of Wyatt. But unfortunately when it comes to knowing the facts, Dewey is far too ignorant to be qualified in assessing Ron Wyatt, and one gets the notion that she is an opportunist who is trying to sell a book off the expense of other’s work.
PAM DEWEY VERSUS SCIENCE
Dewey says that Wyatt’s work, isn’t scientific. However, when you access Wyatt’s materials one gets the notion that Wyatt did in fact practice science. Science is about observation and repetition. Science uses various instrumentation to record artifacts. Science is about collecting data . Wyatt’s work consists of video that was painstakingly used to record mundane and boring data and work that was done on many of his projects. For instance, in the 1985-6 Field Studies video, metal detectors and subsurface radar were used on the Duripinar site. The video recorded each fact as collected giving the viewer the opportunity to see the scientific method being applied in real time. The subsurface radar produced a scan sheet right on the spot, and from the video you could even discern the rib structure being produced as the radar antenna was dragged across the surface of the formation. This is actual science in work. Wyatt has also submitted his samples collected to legitimate labs for testing and he provides the documentation to prove it. Additionally, through Wyatt’s work we know where we can locate all his sites. Some sites may be hard to access, such as Mt Sinai in Saudi Arabia, but the others, such as Noah’s Ark, Sodom & Gomorrah, Red Sea Crossing site, and others, are clearly accessible. In fact, the author went to see Wyatt’s Noah’s Ark site in May of 2003. I know of several people who have gone to the Sodom & Gomorrah site, and a doctor friend of mine scuba dived in the Red Sea, obtaining clear video of chariot parts there. Dewey has to resort to some sort of conspiracy theory to explain all the numerous individuals who come away from these sites in order explain away Ron Wyatt. In reading Dewey’s speculations you would never have know about such individuals. Dewey has never even talked to me even though I have been leaving messages regarding Ron Wyatt for the last five years on the internet. But the real problem for Dewey is that numerous people are coming back from these sites and are telling others about them. So for Dewey to link tabloid newspapers up with Ron Wyatt is self-defeating. The Weekly World, a tabloid seen commonly in grocery stores, has numerous articles with fictious names in supposedly real towns and cities, yet, no one can verify any of the stories because there is insufficient data. That’s not the case with Wyatt’s materials.
In the meantime she thinks that she can profit from the future publication of a book, but by the time that book gets published, numerous individuals will have been to these sites and have invalidated Dewey’s anti scientific speculations.
THE ALLURE OF CRITICISM
Critics, such as Dewey, feed to those who are weary of scam and fraud. Distrust and cynicism pervade society. Most individuals do not have time to research claims and to investigate matters. In the dark corner of Dewey’s world, truth lies in disarray. Dewey, failed to talk to numerous individuals who worked on Wyatt’s projects. Did Dewey talk to Ron Wyatt, his wife, or any other individuals linked to these discoveries? Her writings give no indications of this, in fact, if she had done so, it would cause us to wonder why she hadn’t mentioned it, because it would add to her credibility. This author has written to Dr. John Balmgardner, David Fasold, GSSI, John Morris, and many others. Can Pam Dewey say any more then she swiped all her information from anti-Wyatt web sites? It is for the cause of science that we interview individuals and hear both sides of the issue. Pam Dewey is no scientific investigator of any sort. She has downloaded information from numerous web sites and plans to write a book on it, pretending to be a top-notch investigator. In turn she feeds the flames of distrust, creating an allure based on criticism and misinformation. She entices the ignorant and distrusting. The couch potato and the sluggard, and those who do not care to do their own private investigation. This author has sent an e-mail to her in regard to the information therein, and the numerous errors of those who she has cited. She refuses to respond and this is typical of a couch leaning investigator.
Conclusion:
Pam Dewey is so preoccupied with writing a book and in dismissing Ron Wyatt’s work that she fails to discuss the real issues. Her methodology is anti-scientific and pro ad hominem. She has taken very little time to read and obtain information regarding Wyatt’s work, and seems to be unaware of the numerous errors of fact that opponents of Wyatt spout. Dewey has never seen Fasold’s 1985-6 Field Studies video, and she has never heard the 3ABN conversation with Ron Wyatt, nor has she obtained and studied the Q&A book that is available at www.anchorstone.com. A very big part of science has to do with investigation and talking to those who you are criticizing. Dewey has failed the test. Numerous armchair professors throw out false claims much as do weekly tabloids.
Wyatt Defense
anchorstone.com
Send E-Mail to: mccoy@sunset.net
Copyright © 2003 John McCoy. All Rights Reserved