Monday, January 20, 2014

America Unearthed: The Underwater Pyramids

This latest episode allowed me to reveal something about myself that many people will disagree with; I definitely prefer the Rolling Stones over the Beatles as the greatest rock and roll band ever.  Now that we've settled that...

While our adventure in the Fugusub did not find any pyramids in Rock Lake; technically, it remains an open question whether there are any in the lake or not.  I am very skeptical any pyramids are there for the simple reason I don't believe the lake levels were sufficiently low enough for the area to have been attractive enough for any culture to build them.  While there are plenty of rocks in the lake, this is due to continental glaciers that dumped them there roughly 15,000 years ago.  I'd love to be proven wrong someday, but I doubt that'll happen.

One thing I can say is there definitely are earthen pyramids at the Aztalan State Park.  I really enjoyed my day there with Bob Birmingham, who was very candid, informative, and friendly.  He also was open-minded between takes when we discussed other topics.  As is the case in many places I've visited, it's a shame we don't hear more about sites like Aztalan in our schools growing up.  This fascinating site is one state over and I had never heard of it until a few days before the shoot.  I had certainly heard of the 'pyramids in Rock Lake', but not the legitimate site only a few miles away.  What's even more mind-boggling is we were never taught about the incredible early Native City of Cahokia just outside of St. Louis.  It had a larger population in 13th century than London at the time.  Somehow Cahokia wasn't relevant enough to teach us about in American history class growing up??

One thing you can sure of: there is a reason...



Colin films Russell Canfield as he explains the operation of the Fugusub.


Former Wisconsin State Archaeologist Bob Birmingham pauses for a photo with Scott.


Mexican Scholar Roberto Rodriguez shares his map knowledge with Scott.


Colin Thrienen shoots Scott looking out over Wisconsin farmland.






43 comments:

  1. I really liked the stuff with Roberto Rodriguez. Those old maps really tell the tale don't they? The Subs added a nice touch also...First rule of any adventure story is you have to have unorthodox forms of transportation...I think I'm gonna write that down.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The subs were fun, but I wish we had more time with them than we did.

      Next time!

      Delete
  2. Wolter why was sonar not used at all for the pyramids? Wouldn't that have saved time in the subs? Also, when your sub was running out of power, why not just hop into the one on the surface that was being towed? I just don't understand why more science was not used to really identify the location of the pyramids. When doing a search on google I found that a sonar study was conducted on the lake and many reference gps coordinates were created as possible sites for the pyramids. Respectfully asking, why wasn't the exploration more thorough? Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. First, we didn't have a lot of time set aside to do a more thorough investigation and that is unfortunate. On the other hand, I have yet to see any solid data that's ever been done that is consistent with pyramids being in the lake. We went to where certain "experts" said the pyramids would be and there wasn't anything there. Extensive sonar in a lake that big would be expensive and very time-consuming.

      Delete
    2. I found this to be problematic. The first thing I also asked myself was why a sonar survey wasn't done. Except one was done, and it was reported in the Chicago Tribune in 1999. The survey was done with the help of James Scherz, who operated the towfish sonar scanner and spotted a mass, which he said could be the pyramids or could be weeds. (http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1999-06-15/features/9906150317_1_pyramid-schemes-divers-ancient-pyramids/3)

      I was curious as to why no one consulted this already-existing sonar survey, since all it would take was a phone call. That could at least provide some direction, and you could more definitively say if the pyramids were there or not. You could at least say if they were or weren't in the location where people have said they are in the lake.

      However, I didn't realize that you were already acquaintanced with Scherz until he was a guest on the next episode, and then I learned that you worked with him in the 2009 feature 'Holy Grail in America.' This was even more perplexing, because clearly Scherz was no stranger; shouldn't someone have known that Scherz had already done the sonar survey of Rock Lake, and couldn't you have used that information to do a more pointed exploration?

      Delete
    3. For the record; we did consult with Jim and it was the same general location that we searched.

      We saw mostly weeds.

      Delete
  3. Scott, I'll play some Rolling stones on my live show tonight just for you! lol
    the show is at http://www.renegaderetro.com Just click on the listen link, its starts at 8 pm Pacific Time

    ReplyDelete
  4. I came across this url when searching for Grand Canyon Gold:
    https://sites.google.com/site/ancientegyptiansinamerica/ancient-egyptians-grand-canyon

    ReplyDelete
  5. Scott: Cahokia is hardly a state secret in education. I first read about it in grade school almost 40 years ago, in fact.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Well, I never heard about it in grade school, Junior High or High School. You would think a city that was bigger than London in the 13th Century would be something our country would brag about, but that wasn't the case was it?

    I'm sure some people did learn about Cahokia in school, but I know I wasn't the only one who didn't.

    ReplyDelete
  7. This episode implies that the Antigua Residencia de los Aztecas reference in the four corners region on the map disappears on subsequent maps. The town of Aztec is alive and well in four corners NM near Farmington. Any relation?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm not sure if there a connection or not. However, I don't believe for a second the removal of the "Ancient Home" on the newer map was an accident. What we didn't have time to discuss in the show was there is another location on the older map in what is now Northern Mexico, that listed another settlement of the Aztecs on their apparent journey south. I found this map evidence of the apparent southern migration of the Aztecs to be very compelling.

      Delete
  8. I never learned of Cahokia in Texas public schools until I reached an archeology class at UT-Austin and said the same thing, "why am I just now hearing about this?"

    ReplyDelete
  9. Jeanette,

    While we're on the subject of apparent cover-ups... My best guess the reason few of us heard about Cahokia in school growing up was because Native Americans living in complex cities would have been giving them too much credit. I suspect it was a leftover intentional omission from the "dehumanizing of Natives" days of Manifest Destiny.

    To me, Cahokia should be on par with the Lewis & Clark expedition in importance in American History, but that's me...

    ReplyDelete
  10. Cahokia is an amazing place to visit, I have been there several times myself. There are so many known facts, but also so many mysteries. I'd love to see a future episode on why the Mississippian culture collapsed, where they may have gone, as well as their connections to Cahokia.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous,

      Why Cahokia and other Native cities collapsed around the same time (circa 1300) is an interesting question I have some definite thoughts on. I'm hoping to do a future episode on this very topic. I'll wait and see if that happens before commenting.

      I know; I'm mean...

      Delete
  11. As usual in the world, it has been and is shaped by the people wanting or gaining power and control. It is a shame. But, I wanted to say, fantastic show. I love the experts your bring in and the fresh eyes you see through. I would love to see a follow up show on "following" the trail on the possible Aztecans at Aztalan, Salt Lake, four corners, any tie into Aztec New Mexico ( I have family from there), the new map location into Mexico, and Mexico City. It would be fantastic! Can you please tell me, if the four corners area that the ancient home of the Aztecs were listed on the map is the same home of the Anasazi? Thanks and keep up the great shows!

    ReplyDelete
  12. The thinking....."if you want to learn about the history of N.A. natives (Indians) follow the maizes (corn) crop"...very smart......but also natives needed salt. Salt was more valuable then gold.....you needed salt to live, gold had no use for living. The Aztecs traded salt....so to have or maybe the Aztecs lived near "Salt Lake" in Utah is interesting....that makes a lot of sense?!

    ReplyDelete
  13. Vincent,

    I think you are right on the money. Apparently, the name on the old map where the Aztec's started was called, "Place of whiteness." Sounds like Great Salt Lake to me.

    ReplyDelete
  14. This Episode... like your investigation of the Denver Airport was next to pointless. You didn't bring anything to light that was not already in the open. In fact every episode is about as revealing...
    I was first drawn in to watch your show and made a point to record all your episodes... thinking you were actually going to bring some important conclusions to counter the deceptions and ignorance of the true realities and history... not support one that is created for us.
    I see after seeing several episodes that the only reason you are allowed on Mainstream corporate media... Like "Joe Rogan" is because you are no more than just another source of "controlled truth" or better known as "controlled opposition".

    You went for a ride in the lower level of Denver"s airport with a publicity person...and that was IT? Hugely anti-climactic wouldn't you say. Hardly anyone's idea of "unearthing" or debunking a "conspiracy"about that highly question able airport...
    Then... you're sub ran out of battery.... lol.Sorry, that is just "lame". No one with half a brain will believe you didn't find the structure from the surface and then use the sub to examine the structure... That whole episode had no point whatsoever...A complete waste of time watching you play with a mini sub... but there are plenty of fools to watch that kind of useless corporate network media BS.
    Good Luck with that... Money must be good anyway...
    I doubt my comment will even be posted but that's not my only point anyway.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Lone Ranger,

      If you've read this blog at all you'd know I post all comments including the ones that don't deserve to be. You are welcome to express your opinion and if it makes you feel any better I was also disappointed with the mini-sub. However, I call them as I see them and we don't hit a home run every time. Sometimes there's simply nothing there as in the underwater pyramids. At least I didn't see anything except underwater glacial erratic’s.

      In fact, we have reached definitive conclusions on many things and made significant discoveries you very rarely see.

      Delete
  15. Scott
    I truly find your shows entertaining and thought provoking, but I would like you to consider that you are missing something with regard to the very important distinction between academic peer review and professional peer review, as related to the slow, steady progress of science.
    The entire point in any serious scientific endeavor (from Ph.D thesis to journal submission) is to falsify claims. This ensures that science ultimately progresses, although I think you do not see this.
    Science and the peer review process are not about setting up an hypothesis and then vigorously attempting to prove it correct. Not even halfway. Such a method would immediately fail because contrary evidence would be ignored (every aspiring scientist would learn to tend to ignore it as time progressed). I believe you tend to ignore contrary evidence and also bristle at the idea that one successful attempt to falsify a hypothesis, challenge a method, etc., can render it smothered. This one thing is by far the most important principle in science, and you seem to either want to ignore it/downplay it, or can’t understand it, or refuse to admit it.
    All scientific progress (especially in the hard sciences) is dependent on the action of falsifying the claim in as many ways as possible. Not to do this would be irresponsible. Ask Einstein, ask Dirac, Feynman, Maxwell, Hubble, Pauling, Higgs, etc. Ask any doctoral candidate. We tear them apart and send them packing if they were not painfully THOROUGH in considering EVERY POSSIBLE WAY THEIR HYPOTHESIS COULD BE WRONG.
    EVERY POSSIBLE WAY….
    Scott Durgin

    ReplyDelete
  16. (Durgin Part 2)…I have seen many quacks make many claims (Thomas Bearden being a modern example) using illegitimate methods and incomplete, non-rigorous analyses, and the one common denominator I find (so far) among all these people who want to overturn the apple cart is lack of advanced education. (Bearden is finally realizing after 20 years of shouting, that his ideas will have to go up against Relativity to survive. Too late for all his adherents). There is something about the Doctoral process that truly ingrains the distinction above made. It makes people sound. A Bachelor’s is not enough for in depth study, no matter how many years of practice one might have.
    It takes literally hundreds of years (or at least dozens) for any scientific principle (no matter the discipline) to be accepted, but only a minute for it to be rejected, and this ruthless skepticism is warranted. Science must be very long minded and long winded.
    Example: Bat creek stone: a much higher likelihood prevails that it was hoaxed/faked than a bunch of Hebrew nomads made it here, carved it and left. As long as that discrepancy exists (and every other example will suffer from this, unless THOUSANDS of examples, along with many other types of PHYSICAL evidence, are uncovered and analyzed), accepted history cannot be (and should not be) overturned (Note , even if the claim is TRUE!!). It will take A LOT MORE EVIDENCE to overturn accepted history.
    Academic peer review is like this, and the process makes every attempt to tear apart the candidate’s method, ideas, etc to ensure that the scientific method (not the results) is maintained. It may take 100 years for progress to be made. But I would rather this, than have a hundred theses be accepted and then have to be rejected because someone didn’t ask the penetrating question.
    The Vatican was once the pretended tyrannical ruler of the West; they understand the concept of centuries of time to complete a plan or thought (and boy don’t they have a plan to take back their dominion), but don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater. The Vatican thankfully is now completely irrelevant (except for upholding the opinions of one branch of one branch of a given religious philosophy), but the patient, stolid and immovable science they used, protected and kept from others is valid still today.
    Now (again, thankfully) science and freedom have the upper hand, and while I applaud your attempts to inspire young and old alike toward an interest in science (per se), we don’t want people believing that as soon as positive evidence rolls in to establish the groundwork for some idea/thesis, we lumber forward rejecting all negative evidence. This is unscientific at it’s worst.
    Sagan said it well “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” and this level of evidence SHOULD take decades to collect, formulate, analyze, etc. This is why science is slow, and skepticism seems harsh. We want to ensure beyond all doubt that claims are valid, and this can only be established with mountains of experiments performed OVER and OVER and OVER again.
    Please consider the above. I am not going to write a compendium and waste both my time and yours. I’d simply like to break through the fog and elucidate this one principle I think you are forgetting.
    I am sincerely yours
    Scott Durgin

    ReplyDelete
  17. Scott,

    I'm not sure where to begin with you. First, I find your comments toward me a little insulting to be quite frank. You just can't help yourself in talking down to me and trying to lecture on scientific method and academic peer review citing my bachelor's degree as proof of your claims. Is my lack of PhD somehow make me incapable of understanding the principals you cite? Give me a break!

    Of course I understand falsification and trying to find any and every other possible alternate. However, postulating them and collecting evidence for a contrary possibility is another matter. There is no contrary factual evidence to support the Bat Creek Stone being a hoax no matter how much you and your doubting colleagues want to believe it. Throwing garbage theories and accusations as Mainfort and Kwas have, without factual evidence is not being scholarly. It's irresponsible and unethical.

    Have you not considered the ramifications of throwing out unsupported speculation as is the case with the Bat Creek Stone? Is the reputation of the John Emmert secondary to upholding sacred academic beliefs? What about the veracity of the all of John Emmert's digs for the Smithsonian? If you cast doubt on his honesty of one dig, you have to question all of his digs. I think you get the point. The veracity of the dig was fine for 80 years until the institution realized it screwed up not understanding what the inscription really was. If they knew it was Hebrew in 1889 it would never have seen the light of day again. That’s the only way to explain their ridiculous response since Gordon figured out what it really was. Face it Scott, the Smithsonian is corrupt and broken. You may not even realize it, but you‘ve swallowed their dogma and now continue to perpetuate it.

    Just stop already with the experiments over and over bit, I‘ve run a inorganic materials forensic laboratory for 30 years. I understand the scientific method just fine. You're confusing straight-forward facts, interpretations and conclusions with theoretical research and while similar, they are not the same. Sometimes an inscription is older than Columbus no matter how much it bothers you. That fact has been proven multiple times. Do you realize how many artifacts and sites have been ignored, destroyed, or cast into the dustbin of history because academics haven’t had the capability or the guts to make the correct call for fear of retribution from their colleagues?

    I’ve said it many times and I’ll say it again. The voluminous factual evidence from multiple disciplines, and the lack of factual contrary evidence, are consistent with the Kensington Rune Stone, the Spirit Pond Rune Stones, the Narragansett Rune Stone, the Bat Creek Stone, the Tucson Lead Artifacts and the Newport Tower all having a pre-Columbian origin. If you disagree, don’t waste our time talking about academic theory or process, show us your contrary evidence and then let’s talk about it.

    I don't mean to be a jerk, but I'm tired of academic types lecturing about process instead of discussing specific facts and evidence.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ya know what, I do agree what you say not just because you said it but the fact what you have to say makes valid sense. I believe anyone who is totally knowlegable in a certain science or field of study can be a expert.You do not have to be a learned scholar with vast amounts of degrees in order to distinguish truth or non truth. After all truth will always win everytime. Im totally sick and tired of these genius who come out stare at an objectvfor a few minutes and then declare to the world something is a fake.The bat creek stone is a prime example.who made a certain museum an complete authority on everything known in human history ? No one person or numerous people in the science community can be the supreme answer giver. The museum community need to stop thinking their opinion is the only opinion on any given subject. People in general seem to think indian folklore is nothing more than made up fantasy. It is not. Items found are very important clues to past civilizations. To debunk any legends and stories that native americans have in their culture is the same as robbing the american people their history. What you do Scott doing vast research looking at all the clues and facts is totally amazing. No learned professor or intellect should ever dare say their degrees make them more intelligent then you or I. A phd is nothing more than a piece of paper stating your smart. But who is to say is right or wrong in anything. I would not feel inulted if others put you down in your work. It only means your on the right track and others can't understand how you got there. :)

      Delete
  18. Scott
    Well, I apologize if I sounded insulting, no intention of that. I respect you as an individual and as one who shares an excitement for exploration. I follow you closely and wish you success, but this issue of falsifiability is (I think) an area on which you could improve. Call me presumptuous…
    It may be that academics are blind to the distinction between a concerted effort to prevent disruptive information from reaching “official-dom” and a healthy skepticism, but I don’t think so. I’m on both sides of the fence here, being both academically and practically oriented.
    If we hone in on Bat Creek Stone as the example du-jour, it’s not up to the skeptics to prove the BCS a hoax. The burden of proof is not on those challenging the claim (like proving UFO’s are NOT from outer space, or don’t exist, or proving the Ark of the Covenant was never built, or a global flood never occurred, or that people can’t be raised from the dead, etc, etc); the burden lays with those making the claim; period. Hence Sagan’s quip and hence why science is slow and eventually correct**.
    I don’t believe the BCS is a hoax, what I do contend is that there is not enough evidence to prove otherwise (and until there is enough evidence, the BCS may as well be a hoax, it is more probable by far than the claim as contended), and thus easily falsifiable. I think most skeptics would agree with that approach/assessment, but I do not speak for any of them; I am only an individual.
    Point being that MUCH more evidence is required to turn over the existing paradigm (in any given case). More direct & indirect evidence are required to establish the BCS as a legitimate artifact, alleged Smithsonian actions notwithstanding (I’m not here to defend them). It is enough for the skeptic to bring up only one possibility that it could be a hoax. It is up to the adherent to prepare for that and bring up mountains of compelling evidence to prove the original claim. Note this may take 500 years and trillions of dollars, but that’s how science works (more accurately, that’s how good academics practice science, or should anyway).
    So call me a conspirator, but I contend that the current scientific establishment is justified in admonishing those who make claims outside prevailing theories to submit an appropriate (extraordinary) amount of compelling evidence, the quantity/quality of which (so far) is lacking IMO.
    By the way, my comment about multiple experiments was not to suggest your unfamiliarity with experiment, but rather to augment the above points (scientific establishment resists new theories unless and until a significant quantity of direct and indirect experimentation, performed over a considerable time period, coupled with the necessary valid evidence, corroborates such new theory); again, no insult intended.
    I suppose where we diverge is on the notion of what actually constitutes evidence….this is where we must respectfully agree to disagree

    **Thus, when you state that proof is lacking to establish the BCS as a hoax, you’re turning the scientific method on its head. No proof is necessary, the proof must be established by the claimants (sorry to beat a dead horse). If the prevailing historical evidence had been that Middle Eastern people had been here since ~500 AD (or so), then BCS adherents would be on the “right” side of the argument. The world will need another 500 years of the evidence you (and others) say exists for theories to change, I think


    ReplyDelete
  19. Scott,

    I too apologize for being so gruff, but this exchange illustrates pretty well the differences between the professional and academic approaches to answering questions. If I understand you correctly, all one in academia has to do is make an unsupported claim, like the Bat Creek Stone skeptics have, and automatically after 80 years of being perfectly legitimate its authenticity has to be overturned regardless of the merit of the accusations? In a court of law this case would be over before it started considering the factual evidence supporting its authenticity. This is why nothing gets done in academia and we have the historical mess that we do.

    Believe me, I do appreciate the goals of academia which in most cases, are noble and truly do seek to find truth. What I don't appreciate is when academics do not accept responsibility for their failures and try anything and everything to cover them up, or worse. Sadly, the Bat Creek Stone is the poster child for academia run amok.

    In this discussion I agree that we will have respectfully agree to disagree.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Hello Scott, An enigma for you to perhaps check, located in coastal Louisiana. Recently HBO ran the final episode of True Detective which featured filming at Fort McComb (previously called Fort Wood, pre-Civil War), which was built on an ancient site. The intriguing, sprawling 4 ft thick walled "fort" containing endless mazes, end in a domed circular chamber, much like something one would expect for ancient viewing the sky. You can see the complexity of the structure, (yes, it now battered by nature's hurricanes) if you check that episode, which was shot entirely on location, online. The imagery still haunts me - and my curiosity is curtained peaked. Thanks, Connie LeBlanc, Winnipeg, Canada

    ReplyDelete
  21. Connie,

    This does sound interesting and if we get a Season 4; I'll add it to the list of episode ideas.

    Thanks for the tip!

    ReplyDelete
  22. Hello, I live just west of Madison,WI and I may take a trip there this next summer.
    Anyway, am I the only one who Google Earthed Rock Lake and can clearly see 3 pyramid red-shaped objects in the water??

    ReplyDelete
  23. Adam,

    Keep in mind that many of these rock formations could be glacial recessional moraines that often are shaped in such a way as to appear man-made when they are actually natural. I'm hopeful to get back down there to see what else might be there.

    ReplyDelete
  24. I wasn't sure where else to send this to you so this seemed as good as any other. I've watched through all your episodes several times but I caught something, it may or may not be something that has caught your attention previously, but in the "Montezuma's Gold" episode you received the maps with the note "Please put these to good use" and you stated you received this anonymously. I thought I had heard this somewhere before and looking back at the Underwater Pyramid episode the Dr. Roberto Rodriguez had told you that he had received the same maps with the same message anonymously in the 1990's except those were missing the circle with the line through it. I don't know if you had caught this or not. Seems to me someone really wants these couple of things looked into if they are willing to keep sending out info over the course of decades. Also they may have more information than they are letting onto, and only feeding you enough scraps to get you or anyone hunting for answers, why? I don't know.

    ReplyDelete
  25. I've received several anonymous tips about a number of different things and try my best when given the opportunity. Unfortunately, when filming the shows we don't have unlimited time or budget. However, hopefully we make progress to the point where someone in the future can take what they've learned and eventually find something.

    This begs the question; if found, who do these treasures belong to? I don't think they'd belong to me if I found them. In my view, they belong to the world. Do I trust the Smithsonian to do the right thing? No way. In the end, if I found the Lost Dutchman Mine, Montezuma's Treasure or the Templar's treasure, I'd probably take a ton of photos and video, maybe a couple pieces as evidence, then seal it back up and write another book about it.

    I'd be satisfied having found it and knowing where it was. There isn't anyone in the world I'd trust to do the right thing with those vast riches; whatever they might be.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I guess the point I was trying to hit on it that you may want to do more work hunting down that anonymous source. The person has sent atleast 3 packets over the course of 25 years, that we know of, trying to get someone to investigate these sites further. They may know more than they are letting on initially in their packets, as they seem to have some vested interest in it. My best guess is they know something more and have some fear of coming forward about it (i.e. breaking a Masonic secret) but they really want the truth. Anyway great show, just thought I'd tip you off to what I'd put together incase it hadn't stuck in your memory when the other Dr. mentioned his packet to you because the shows were filmed so long apart. Keep it up.

      Delete
    2. Also, I agree with you that they should belong to the world, as to how that would work, your guess is as good as mine. I would just like to see some of these great mysteries solved ever once in a while to show the truth of these legends is still out there, you just have to keep looking.

      Delete
  26. I thoroughly enjoyed the show
    It's great to see in your eyes "the awakening" to truth that is hidden from you by your government, educators and church.

    The corn is amazing..
    However it is only ONE of "the sisters "..

    Good luck on your journey.
    I enjoy your show very much.
    Thank you.

    ReplyDelete
  27. William,

    I'm so glad to hear you are enjoying the show and you are quite right about who is hiding the truth from us. However, if enough common people speak up, that is when they will be forced to listen and change can begin to happen.

    Corn, squash and beans; are those the "Three Sisters" you are referring to? Native Americans had a lot of life figured out and only now are we beginning to understand that.

    I'll take all the luck I can get and keep watching, there's more good stuff to come!

    ReplyDelete
  28. Scott,

    It's too bad you didn't have time to explore the lake further. Frank Joseph has published at least one photo from a dive showing what appears to be a clearly made human-wall.

    He explains his own difficulty with finding the sites, and then losing the sites, in this interview, which details how he managed to video tape them as well;

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vp8DFDX7k6g

    Photo link for the round wall is at the page below:

    https://www.facebook.com/pages/Rock-Lake-Pyramids/155894454484837

    Scroll down the page a little, photo is dated 1992, Frank Joseph

    ReplyDelete
  29. Aaron,

    I'm very aware of Frank Joseph's work on Rock Lake. I did not see anything resembling man made structures in the lake and am skeptical anything of significance made by man is down there. However, I remain open-minded if credible evidence is brought forward.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Dear Mr. Wolter,
    As a diver who was in Rock Lake and located the 'pyramids', they have the same rock mixtures and size as the mounds of the local moraine. A topomap shows the frequency and size of mounds, a match for the ones under the water. https://www.topoquest.com/map.php?lat=43.10426&lon=-89.05439&datum=nad27&zoom=32&map=auto&coord=d&mode=zoomout&size=m Oh, and as a practical joke I stacked the local basalt like bricks at the bottom of the 'pyramid' and it was found the next year as in this newspaper article: http://www.w-files.com/files/rocklake.html Some people need to take personal responsibility and gain practical knowledge about nature and what underwater features actually look like when natural and not man made. So you are correct to say no man made structures, I verify that in my experience. But, meanwhile, the hamburgers are good at the Pyramid Cafe in Lake Mills!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It never made sense to me there should be pyramids at the bottom of glacial freshwater lakes. However, I kept an open mind and looked into it. Despite the problems we had with the Fugusub, I did get a chance to look in the areas reported to have these structures and didn't see anything.

      Until I do see something compelling I remain skeptical on this one.

      Delete
  31. I am a huge fan of your show and your works. I just re-watched the America Unearthed episode about the underwater pyramids and it dawned on me... after a recent trip to Pere Marquette, a drive through Alton, IL, a quick stop to view the painting of the Piasa bird on a bluff along the river road and read about a legend which included reference of two water monsters...I just find it interesting that there is another Loch Ness type monster reference in our states among the Native American Hx.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Havendd79,

      Many native legends are allegorical and not to be taken literally. However, some are to be taken at face value. The challenge is which one is correct for any given story or legend.

      The Lake monster could also be giant Muskie in a Lake that terrorized a fisherman. They've been know to bite swimmers and do have razor sharp teeth.

      I don't believe a "Nessie" type of creature inhabits our freshwater lakes in glacial country here in the north. However, we do have monster sized fish that could be the source of the legends. Hard to say for certain?

      Delete