Bat creek stone, found in Tennessee with Paleo-Hebrew writing...a language the northern dispersed tribes would have known well
The Bat Creek Stone was shown to be a 19th-century forgery, copied directly from a Hebrew inscription in "General History, Cyclopedia, and Dictionary of Freemasonry" except with two miswritten letters which make the inscription nonsense.
Imagine the likelihood that some random stone written by ancient American Hebrews happens to match the exact same inscription found in one of the most widely available Masonic writings of the time....except that it looks written by someone who didn't even understand Hebrew.
Los Lunes, New Mexico....more Paleo Hebrew writings found in the Americas
The Los Lunas Decalogue Stone is considered a likely forgery as well, because its Hebrew is closer to modern Hebrew than ancient, is full of puncuation mistakes and fused letters from different time periods and languages, because there are several major copying errors that would only be made by someone who didn't understand the words they were trying to copy, and because it was discovered in a place completely devoid of any associated signs of an ancient civilization that could have written it.
The Decalogue and Keystone found in the 1800s in Ohio...
This is the most obvious forgery of the whole bunch, considering that it's been known to be a forgery since 1860 when it was discovered.
The first stone, the "keystone", was discovered in June 1860 and was immediately exposed as an obvious forgery because it was written in modern Hebrew and full of obvious mistakes. Abraham Geiger of the New York Times wrote in JULY 1860 that that shyt was obviously fake, the "the bungling work of an unskilled stone mason and the strangeness of some letters as well as the many mistakes and transpositions was his fault. The letters are not antique. This is not a relic of hoary antiquity".
So just three months after their first find was exposed as a fake, the same people found a SECOND stone, the "Decalogue", in the same exact place but this time written in ancient Hebrew, form but still with modern Hebrew alphabet, as if they had taken into account why their original find was discredited so quick and tried harder lol. It was also found to closely match an image in
Discoveries in the Ruins of Nineveh and Babylon, a popular archeology book of the time.
www.csicop.org
So in conclusion we have 3 different examples of "Hebrew" writing, made in 3 different versions of the script, in three completely different parts of the country, all of which are full of errors and unassociated with any matching cultural finds.
What's more likely to you - that there was some giant Hebrew culture that ranged across the USA, somehow incorporated modern changes to Hebrew script and happened to match stuff published in pop Hebrew books of their time of discovery, but only left 3 perfect-looking traces spread across the country and not a single other fragment or evidence? Or that the late 1800s and early 1900s were famous for archeological frauds and forgeries and three amateur attempts popped up around that time?