"Rodney Meldrum: The Movie"

[consiglieri]

In case it wasn't clear, I was speaking as Rodney Meldrum using the principle of Implied Email Investiture of Authority.

A cross-over classic!

[finepix]

Okay, I'm a newbie here, but I have been following the Meldrum controversy for a while and doing a little bit of my own study in this area. (anyway this site popped up on my Google Alerts today)

So not knowing the thread that you all are following, I can only say that before you all climb over each other to be the first to "drive home the knock-out punch" against the movie (based upon nothing more than a trailer...) I suggest that you JUST might want to take a couple of breaths and consider the human capacity to be flexible and accomodative of new paradigms, facts and realities -- as a means of growth and intellectual progress... and use that power to resist the temptation to resort to tired old worn out cliche's and what so far appears to be no more than childish name calling.

I noticed the movie will be shown for free from 1:00 until 9:00pm tomorrow at the EXPO center in Sandy. So no real excuse to not give it a look, I know I'm going to.

So far from what I see, not one of you has put forward a single substantive argument against the central thrust of the movie. Are you going to quote more outdated and "politically corrected" (by 19th century stds) information regarding what is and is not a "fake" or "hoax?"

It might be helpful to focus on the central point of the movie's message... and that is that there was an orchestrated campaign designed to DESTROY and diminish any evidence that could possibly be interpreted as coming from a "civilized" people in America (USA) before Columbus. Evidently none of you is aware that there were "experts" "appointed" by the government (in league with other laudable institutions) whose job it was to "declare" such findings as mere "hoaxes" and "frauds" (no doubt there were actually some REAL FAKES fabricated and added to the mix to lend legitimacy to their efforts). But the key point you all seem to be missing is that this is a breaking story, a story exposing the "sins" of America's past history and that of its writers/purveyors.

This has huge implications that go far beyond a narrow BoM geography discussion. These scholars in the 21st century are unveiling what appears to be a long-standing, pervasive and premeditated, anti-Indian and genocidally racist campaign to smear any evidence of what might have lended credence to to the notion of an advanced civilization in NA thus opening wide the doors for "unfettered" Manifest Destiny.

The point that these scholars are asserting either has merit or it does not (the premise is either true or false). I for one would like to evaluate their findings BEFORE passing judgment. The archeologists and "experts" that appear in the video are not a bunch of amateurs, (Okay I'll grant you a freebie if you must and you can have your "clueless" -- Meldrum and Porter -- what do they know anyway?) but before you go too far down the path of tossing all the babies out with the bathwater you might want to do a teensey weensey bit of homework on these real live doctors who do this for a living before you make yourselves look like complete idiots in public.

Don't you think these real Doctors KNOW that the artifacts have been "declared" fakes? (But by whom and on what basis?) Do you think they would risk their professional reputations to support something as controversial as fake artifacts? Or worse yet, something that could support the Book of Mormon and/or Joseph Smith? The point is, that these experts are NOT about proving anybody's particular religious point of view (they could frankly care less) their work is all about proving the massive cover-up and blatant rewriting of early American history and the archaeo-revisionist history that a carefully crafted campaign (even a conspiracy of the blackest order against the native populations) was set up to accomplish. So if you find yourself quoting research that is more than 5 or 10 years old then you just might be spouting obsolete and (now) discredited science.

Just a thought... proceeding with caution is advisable.

[Sevenbak]

In addition to the bogus artifacts, Meldrum et al. continue to try and drag Monk's Mound/Cahokia and Moundville into their arguments even though they post-date the Book of Mormon by several centuries. Rod is aware of this, as I have personally explained the discrepancy to him in person and via email.

The Hopewellian culture, and the tens of thousands of mounds it produced are indeed within the correct Nephite time period, regardless of a few randomly selected landmarks that some say otherwise.

Where I have a problem with Meldrum, is his conclusions and limited scope of the civilization.

[volgadon]

So far from what I see, not one of you has put forward a single substantive argument against the central thrust of the movie. Are you going to quote more outdated and "politically corrected" (by 19th century stds) information regarding what is and is not a "fake" or "hoax?"

Using fake info to promote an argument is like shooting one's self in the foot. Worthless arguments.

[Mark Beesley]

Okay, I'm a newbie here, but I have been following the Meldrum controversy for a while and doing a little bit of my own study in this area. (anyway this site popped up on my Google Alerts today)

So not knowing the thread that you all are following, I can only say that before you all climb over each other to be the first to "drive home the knock-out punch" against the movie (based upon nothing more than a trailer...) I suggest that you JUST might want to take a couple of breaths and consider the human capacity to be flexible and accomodative of new paradigms, facts and realities -- as a means of growth and intellectual progress... and use that power to resist the temptation to resort to tired old worn out cliche's and what so far appears to be no more than childish name calling.

I noticed the movie will be shown for free from 1:00 until 9:00pm tomorrow at the EXPO center in Sandy. So no real excuse to not give it a look, I know I'm going to.

So far from what I see, not one of you has put forward a single substantive argument against the central thrust of the movie. Are you going to quote more outdated and "politically corrected" (by 19th century stds) information regarding what is and is not a "fake" or "hoax?"

It might be helpful to focus on the central point of the movie's message... and that is that there was an orchestrated campaign designed to DESTROY and diminish any evidence that could possibly be interpreted as coming from a "civilized" people in America (USA) before Columbus. Evidently none of you is aware that there were "experts" "appointed" by the government (in league with other laudable institutions) whose job it was to "declare" such findings as mere "hoaxes" and "frauds" (no doubt there were actually some REAL FAKES fabricated and added to the mix to lend legitimacy to their efforts). But the key point you all seem to be missing is that this is a breaking story, a story exposing the "sins" of America's past history and that of its writers/purveyors.

This has huge implications that go far beyond a narrow BoM geography discussion. These scholars in the 21st century are unveiling what appears to be a long-standing, pervasive and premeditated, anti-Indian and genocidally racist campaign to smear any evidence of what might have lended credence to to the notion of an advanced civilization in NA thus opening wide the doors for "unfettered" Manifest Destiny.

The point that these scholars are asserting either has merit or it does not (the premise is either true or false). I for one would like to evaluate their findings BEFORE passing judgment. The archeologists and "experts" that appear in the video are not a bunch of amateurs, (Okay I'll grant you a freebie if you must and you can have your "clueless" -- Meldrum and Porter -- what do they know anyway?) but before you go too far down the path of tossing all the babies out with the bathwater you might want to do a teensey weensey bit of homework on these real live doctors who do this for a living before you make yourselves look like complete idiots in public.

Don't you think these real Doctors KNOW that the artifacts have been "declared" fakes? (But by whom and on what basis?) Do you think they would risk their professional reputations to support something as controversial as fake artifacts? Or worse yet, something that could support the Book of Mormon and/or Joseph Smith? The point is, that these experts are NOT about proving anybody's particular religious point of view (they could frankly care less) their work is all about proving the massive cover-up and blatant rewriting of early American history and the archaeo-revisionist history that a carefully crafted campaign (even a conspiracy of the blackest order against the native populations) was set up to accomplish. So if you find yourself quoting research that is more than 5 or 10 years old then you just might be spouting obsolete and (now) discredited science.

Just a thought... proceeding with caution is advisable.

Very well put, but new paradigms scare the ****ens out of some people, disrupts their comfort zone, and raises the ire of those invested in the old paradigms.

It will be interesting to see the documentary. Almost makes me wish I lived Utah so I could see it sooner . . . but only almost.

[Mark Beesley]

Using fake info to promote an argument is like shooting one's self in the foot. Worthless arguments.

And judging a documentary by a 3 minute trailer is like . . . well, you tell us.

[Mark Beesley]

He's using them as evidence of ancient civilizations in the trailer. As a documentary videographer / editor by profession myself, I find this to be completely disingenuous and misleading, even if the reasons you posit are valid.

Gee, I must have missed those comments in the trailer. Must be AADD . . .

[volgadon]

And judging a documentary by a 3 minute trailer is like . . . well, you tell us.

I was going off comments made in that email to Cinepro. They are pretty unambiguous.

[Sevenbak]

Gee, I must have missed those comments in the trailer. Must be AADD . . .

A documentary isn't just about sound bites and commentary. When he uses video of these items as b-roll over talking heads spouting ancient origins, that's irresponsible at best.

[volgadon]

One can learn a lot from even a 3 minute trailer.I suggest you read some essays by Sergei Eisenstein, who pioneered the 'language' of film.

[Mark Beesley]

A documentary isn't just about sound bites and commentary. When he uses video of these items as b-roll over talking heads spouting ancient origins, that's irresponsible at best.

Right, and trailers are ALWAYS a faithful depiction of what the movie is about . . .

Again, why don't you just wait until you've seen the entire documentary before passing judgment? I mean, you could be right. It could be worthless. But then again, it might also have some really useful stuff in it. But if you prejudge it, you could miss the pearls.

Holy cow, this is like my 4th or 5th post today. Gotta go. See ya all in a month or so.

[volgadon]

Lost Civilization shows many of the artifacts that have survived, the written stone tablets, the copper and iron tools and weapons and others that reveal an origin for these people that was purposely hidden away. We go with the film to the Johnson-Humrickhouse Museum in Coshocton, Ohio where the Director of the museum describes the controversy behind the "Holy Stones", upon which are written the entire Ten Commandments in block Hebrew, purportedly found within the Newark Earthworks.

Things like this do not fill me with confidence.

[Calm]

Right, and trailers are ALWAYS a faithful depiction of what the movie is about . . .

If the trailer of a documentary is not a "faithful depiction of what the movie is about" then is the error with those viewing the trailer or the ones who produced the trailer?

And since it's the people who make the documentary who also make the trailer, what is the purpose of making a misleading trailer for a documentary (assuming here they are decent enough film producers not to make such a gross error unintentionally...if the assumption is wrong, that doesn't speak well for the documentary at all)?

[dblagent007]

In addition to the bogus artifacts, Meldrum et al. continue to try and drag Monk's Mound/Cahokia and Moundville into their arguments even though they post-date the Book of Mormon by several centuries. Rod is aware of this, as I have personally explained the discrepancy to him in person and via email.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monks_Mound

"Construction of Monk's Mound by the Mississipian culture began about 900

[handys003]

Okay, I'm a newbie here, but I have been following the Meldrum controversy for a while and doing a little bit of my own study in this area. (anyway this site popped up on my Google Alerts today)

So not knowing the thread that you all are following, I can only say that before you all climb over each other to be the first to "drive home the knock-out punch" against the movie (based upon nothing more than a trailer...) I suggest that you JUST might want to take a couple of breaths and consider the human capacity to be flexible and accommodative of new paradigms, facts and realities -- as a means of growth and intellectual progress... and use that power to resist the temptation to resort to tired old worn out clich

[Cold Steel]

Meldrum and his movement (and it is a movement) are masters at misdirection, and they represent a danger to the church. First, Meldrum makes some noteworthy concessions in his book

[Brant Gardner]

So far from what I see, not one of you has put forward a single substantive argument against the central thrust of the movie. Are you going to quote more outdated and "politically corrected" (by 19th century stds) information regarding what is and is not a "fake" or "hoax?"

No. The information about the Michigan artifacts being faked is based on scientific study of the artifacts, combined with the historical evidence that included the eye witness account of their manufacture. Of course, one might want to cast doubt on the historical statement, but the scientific study was absolutely conclusive. In one test, they found a fly wing embedded in the coating that was intended to give the artifact the ancient patina (rather obviously marking it as modern).

After the criticism that the Michigan artifacts seemed to require metal tools, but none were found, tools were found. On one "chisel," there was a blunted head as though it has been struck, but the point was unusable and unused (ergo, the "blunting" was artificial). There was also a "file" (shown in the trailer) that looks like a file, but is completely non-functional. It was created for appearances, not function.

This isn't "outdated" information, unless 20 years ago qualifies as outdated. In this case, I do not believe that it does.

It might be helpful to focus on the central point of the movie's message... and that is that there was an orchestrated campaign designed to DESTROY and diminish any evidence that could possibly be interpreted as coming from a "civilized" people in America (USA) before Columbus. Evidently none of you is aware that there were "experts" "appointed" by the government (in league with other laudable institutions) whose job it was to "declare" such findings as mere "hoaxes" and "frauds" (no doubt there were actually some REAL FAKES fabricated and added to the mix to lend legitimacy to their efforts). But the key point you all seem to be missing is that this is a breaking story, a story exposing the "sins" of America's past history and that of its writers/purveyors.

If this is correct, then the movie is worse than I had thought. I cannot believe that the people with Ph.D.s who were quoted subscribe to that theory. It is has the hallmark of Wayne May. It is a severe distortion of the state of US archaeology during the time period, and is rather belied by the evidence that exists from that time period, both from the archaeologists and the remains that have been excavated later.

If this is the argument, it is conspiracy theory at is most extreme. Please continue to learn more and wait for a long time before you credit this kind of stuff. It simply doesn't reflect actual history or the archaeological processes that preserved our information.

Don't you think these real Doctors KNOW that the artifacts have been "declared" fakes? (But by whom and on what basis?)

I am very certain that they do. I am equally certain that they agree that they are fakes. I am virtually certain that they had no idea that they would be used as talking heads with those faked artifacts used as a backdrop, making it appear that they accept them.

There is no trained scientist or archaeologist who has ever examined them who has accepted them. Their proponents don't have the training and continue to push them in spite of overwhelming evidence against them. In this case, they appear to have placed honest scholars in a position where they appear to support something that I can almost guarantee that they do not.

If you are looking for conspiracies, you might begin with those who have concocted this terrible juxtaposition of accurate information with falsified information.

Do you think they would risk their professional reputations to support something as controversial as fake artifacts?

Absolutely not, which is why I am certain that they didn't know how they would be tacitly associated with them.

Just a thought... proceeding with caution is advisable.

I quite agree, but I would urge you to caution and a little more research. I included some of the history of the artifacts and attempts to restore their reputation in this article.

[Lamanite]

If the trailer of a documentary is not a "faithful depiction of what the movie is about" then is the error with those viewing the trailer or the ones who produced the trailer?

And since it's the people who make the documentary who also make the trailer, what is the purpose of making a misleading trailer for a documentary (assuming here they are decent enough film producers not to make such a gross error unintentionally...if the assumption is wrong, that doesn't speak well for the documentary at all)?

Well said Cal.

Big UP!

Lamanite

[John D the First]

No. The information about the Michigan artifacts being faked is based on scientific study of the artifacts, combined with the historical evidence that included the eye witness account of their manufacture. Of course, one might want to cast doubt on the historical statement, but the scientific study was absolutely conclusive. In one test, they found a fly wing embedded in the coating that was intended to give the artifact the ancient patina (rather obviously marking it as modern).

After the criticism that the Michigan artifacts seemed to require metal tools, but none were found, tools were found. On one "chisel," there was a blunted head as though it has been struck, but the point was unusable and unused (ergo, the "blunting" was artificial). There was also a "file" (shown in the trailer) that looks like a file, but is completely non-functional. It was created for appearances, not function.

This isn't "outdated" information, unless 20 years ago qualifies as outdated. In this case, I do not believe that it does.

If this is correct, then the movie is worse than I had thought. I cannot believe that the people with Ph.D.s who were quoted subscribe to that theory. It is has the hallmark of Wayne May. It is a severe distortion of the state of US archaeology during the time period, and is rather belied by the evidence that exists from that time period, both from the archaeologists and the remains that have been excavated later.

If this is the argument, it is conspiracy theory at is most extreme. Please continue to learn more and wait for a long time before you credit this kind of stuff. It simply doesn't reflect actual history or the archaeological processes that preserved our information.

I am very certain that they do. I am equally certain that they agree that they are fakes. I am virtually certain that they had no idea that they would be used as talking heads with those faked artifacts used as a backdrop, making it appear that they accept them.

There is no trained scientist or archaeologist who has ever examined them who has accepted them. Their proponents don't have the training and continue to push them in spite of overwhelming evidence against them. In this case, they appear to have placed honest scholars in a position where they appear to support something that I can almost guarantee that they do not.

If you are looking for conspiracies, you might begin with those who have concocted this terrible juxtaposition of accurate information with falsified information.

Absolutely not, which is why I am certain that they didn't know how they would be tacitly associated with them.

I quite agree, but I would urge you to caution and a little more research. I included some of the history of the artifacts and attempts to restore their reputation in this article.

Thanks for taking the time to spell this out. As a Latter-day Saint, it is really exiting to see metal artifacts in America and I can understand how people can easily get sucked in. It's really lamentable that some are attempting revive them despite their being fully discredited. I'm afraid this has the potential to cause significant division in the church, at least on a popular level. I get particularly concerned when these claims are associated with prophetic authority. It just seems all too likely that the debate will, in the eyes of some, turn into a battle between the learned who are 'wise in their own sight' and the faithful who trust the prophets.

[consiglieri]

Perhaps it would be wise to see the documentary and hear how some of the fraudulent relics are being used before dismissing the film.

When the trailer flashes pictures of the Kinderhook plates not once, but twice (at 0.57 and 2.06) while the voice-over is talking about ancient American writing, it is pretty clear to see how the fraudulent relics are being used.

I doubt I will watch the documentary itself.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[livy111us]

Anyone here plan on going? I'll be there at the 1:00 session

[volgadon]

It is almost (but not quite) a pity that Tiberius the Tapir was banned. I would love to read another of his ridiculous rants.

[Wiki Wonka]

It is almost (but not quite) a pity that Tiberius the Tapir was banned. I would love to read another of his ridiculous rants.

Ask and ye shall receive...the Tapir Man was recently spotted posting comments on the FAIR Blog at the end of December. Among his notable comments: "Will FAIR endorse World Tapir Day 2010?"

So, for those who are suffering Tapir Man withdrawal, you can get your fix here on the FAIR Blog.. Just search for the word "tapir."

WW

[katherine the great]

I doubt I will watch the documentary itself.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

I had no idea you were such a snob Siggy! I think it looks very interesting--certainly a very high quality production as far as documentary film making goes--not the least bit cheesy. It looks on par with most productions I see on the history channel. Well, I guess I can't really say that unless they have really good dramatic reenactments throughout, but the film quality looks good, the sound is very good and the graphics look good too! I'm a sucker for "pretty" things. I'll have to see if it's playing anywhere nearby and then report back on the actual content.

[volgadon]

Ask and ye shall receive...the Tapir Man was recently spotted posting comments on the FAIR Blog at the end of December. Among his notable comments: "Will FAIR endorse World Tapir Day 2010?"

So, for those who are suffering Tapir Man withdrawal, you can get your fix here on the FAIR Blog.. Just search for the word "tapir."

WW

Awesome.

Perhaps over there I can finally get him to tell me what a river horse is. Hope springs eternal!