In this on-line book Wyatt presents what he considers the best evidence that the anomaly found in eastern Turkey is Noah's Ark discuss the evidence:

"Noah's Ark" by Ron Wyatt.(as published on the WAR website)
http://www.pilgrimpromo.com/WAR/

Forward

In 1977, I made the first of 25 (to date) trips to Turkey, and after that first trip, I knew for sure. But gaining the evidence needed to convince the world was another matter.

Today, we have trainloads of evidence."

One needs to ask just exactly what it was that convinced Wyatt that the thing he saw was Noah's Ark. Since he did not at that time have the trainloads of evidence, what evidence did he have? And, why wasn't the evidence that convinced him enough to convince others? Why do others need trainloads of evidence?

How would anyone know if they had found Noah's Ark? Let me ask how would anyone know that they had found me? To help you out let me give you a description of my self:

1. male
2. 5'5"
3. 125 lbs
4. blue eyes
5. brown/graying hair
6. beard with grey streak
7. ponytail
8. 49 years old
9. eyeglasses
10. Live in Arizona

I may not be the only person alive with those specification, but you would have a pretty good chance of identifying me if ever we met. Now, lets consider Noah's Ark.

Description list from Genesis 6:14-16; (NIV)

1. made of cypress ( or gopher) wood
2. rooms
3. coated with pitch inside and out
4. 300 cubit long (450 - 525 ft)
5. 50 cubits wide (75 - 87.5 ft)
6. 30 cubits high (45 - 52.5 ft)
7. It has a roof
8. It has a window near the top
9. It has a door/way in it side
10. It has a lower, middle and upper decks
11. It landed in the mountains of Ararat (Urartu)

This is the only description we have of the Ark. We might speculate on other points, but they could not be used to identify the Ark. These are the only means by which we can identify an artifact or remains as being Noah's Ark.

Which of the above list, did Wyatt use to "know" that he had found the Ark in 1977? Frankly, the only ones possible are #s 4, 5 and maybe 7. That is not enough to be positive that the anomaly is Noah's Ark.

THE YEARS OF RESEARCH... 1977 - 1987 Chapter 2

"Ronny! Are you awake? We've gotta get outta here! Some of those villagers are trying to kill us!" ... (For the record, the same thing could and often does happen to tourists from other countries who visit our country and fall among the criminal element of our society.) (chapter 2)"

What did Wyatt do to the locals to be threatened with his life? Hundreds of other searchers for Noah's Ark have stayed in that same hotel, traveled throughout that area, and have never been threatened by the local people. It is obvious from his book that it was Wyatt's personality and attitude toward the locals that got him in trouble. It is the same attitude he had towards those who disagreed with him.

"Our discoveries on the 1977 trip included several massive, pierced anchor stones that bore an eight-cross iconographic representation of the eight survivors of the flood." Chapter 2

On what basis are these identified as anchor stones? And even if by some cosmic accident they are anchor stones, what have they to do with the Ark? Are they on the list (above) provided by the Bible? No! They simply have no relevance to the discovery of the Ark at all.

"These crosses were inscribed by the Byzantine and Crusader Christians, which proved that something or someone convinced them that these pierced stones were relics from the Ark of Noah." Chapter 2

Really? Was Wyatt an expert of Byzantine and Crusader inscriptions? Where are the quotes which back up such a claim? Where did he publish his interpretations in a peer reviewed journal? These are valid questions, not attacks on Wyatt's character. Even if these were Byazntine inscriptions, this does not prove that the stones were relics from the Ark. And, If we grant that they made these inscriptions because that had thought or had been told that these were from the Ark, that still does not prove them to have anything at all to do with Noah's Ark. They are not on the description list.

"One of the stones bore the inscription of Nimrod, the builder of the tower of Babel and several great cities of early antiquity. These symbols of Nimrod were crosses with the outline of a boat (the Ark?) attached to the base of the cross. This symbolized his claim that he had preserved mankind in the face of their attempted destruction by the gods. The boat at the foot of the cross represented the means he claimed to have used to save mankind. The horizontal member of the cross represented heaven, and the vertical member of the cross represented the tower of Babel, which was the pathway to heaven he had promised his followers he would provide. After Nimrod's death, the boat symbol was placed at the top of the vertical member of the cross and is the symbol of life in the Egyptian hieroglyphics and the symbol of Nimrod's (Osirus) presence in heaven from whence he cares for his earthly followers." Chapter 2

Where did Wyatt come up with these interpretations of the inscriptions? What expert archaeologists on Byzantine inscriptions have studied these and provided Wyatt with the interpretations? These are Wyatt's own interpretations and they are suspect because of his desire to prove that they have to do with Noah's Ark. Only an disinterested interpretation is valid.

"We found two grave markers that bore the eight-cross symbols of Noah and his family above an ancient, petroglyphic portrayal of Noah's death on one marker and that of his wife on the other. These grave markers were in the front of a very ancient stone house." Chapter 2

Who's interpretations are these? Was Wyatt a recognized authority on interpretation of inscriptions? Where are the references? All interpretations must be backed up with references or quotes or identified as Wyatt's own interpretation.

"These markers and the house have been vandalized, and over one hundred million US dollars worth of gold and gemstones were stolen from the graves. The Turkish authorities are seeking to recover these precious artifacts and to punish the thieves. At present, they are aware of the identity of the most probable person responsible for this outrage. He is a man who has been involved in the Ark search in the past, but he dropped from the public eye shortly after the theft..." Chapter 2

Upon what basis is it known that $100,000,000 in treasures was dug up and taken away? Where is the inventory on which this estimate is based? Who is the witness for this supposed crime? This is an excellent example of yellow journalism, designed to inflame passions against those who disagree with Wyatt. It is well known the locals are always digging up old grave sites looking for treasure. They are very jealous of any strangers trespassing on their treasure sites. They assume that everyone else is after treasure also. This story likely comes from the vivid imagination of the local treasure hunters.

from Noah's and his wife's graves." Chapter 2

On what evidence other than Wyatt's own speculation on the inscriptions can we conclude that he has found not only Noah's Ark, but also Noah's and his wife's grave site? There is none. This is not valid evidence.

"Watching the evening news on the 28th of December, 1978, I was thrilled to see that an earthquake had hit the area where the Ark remains were located and that there had been no casualties! I made arrangements to return to the site, and arrived there in the early summer of 1979. The formation had been split down the middle along its entire length, and the earth had fallen away from its sides."

Chapter 2

The black line wiggling down the middle of the formation in this illustration from Wyatt's book is drawn in by hand. In other words, the photo has been retouched, it does not show the supposed crack claimed by Wyatt. Why would Wyatt show a retouched photo and not mention that it had been retouched?

"Galbraith Laboratories of Knoxville, Tennessee was highly recommended, and it was to them I entrusted the care and analysis of these precious samples. The results were astounding! The raw carbon content showed the object to be composed of decayed wood, and a high concentration of oxidized metal was shown. We had taken three samples from the site at distances that guaranteed them to be out of the geological influence of the boat remains. These compared favorably with chemical values of normal countryside and proved that the boat formation was composed of decayed and oxidized archaeological remains!" Chapter 2

The higher count of carbon content for samples from within the site compared to the immediate surrounding soils simply show the differences in soils. It is obvious to everyone, simply by visual inspection, that the soils are different. This does not explain why the soil samples are different. This does not prove that the carbon came from decayed wood. It may simply be that the differences in soils allowed for more plant life to grow within the anomaly than outside it.

The same thing goes for higher concentrations of oxidized metal. The analysis simply shows what elements the sample are composed of. They do not explain why the samples are the way they are. Neither do they have anything to say about the origin of those elements within the samples.

There is more scientific evidence provided in the other critiques on this web site.

"I demonstrated a pattern of metals and/or their oxides that showed the outline of a boat in the formation. The army officer, under my direction, took several small samples from metal brackets and petrified timbers.... we proceeded with the analysis of the samples per agreement with the Turkish authorities. The results of these analyses confirmed those taken in 1979 and proved that the formation contained a massive, ancient boat that was built of massive, wooden timbers held in place by many massive, metal brackets and spikes!" Chapter 2

Chemical analysis does not and cannot determine the origin of the minerals found in a sample. It is pure imagination and the height of chicanery to claim that this analysis proved "massive timbers," "massive metal brackets," and "spikes."

And furthermore, are metal brackets and spikes on the Biblical list of identifying features of Noah's Ark? No! Whether there were or were not metal parts in the Ark is totally irrelevant to the identification of Noah's Ark.

Does Wyatt know what a petrifaction does? He doesn't give any evidence here that he knows, nor give any evidence of petrifaction. A piece of wood is petrified when the wood (including the carbon atoms) are replaced by silicate minerals that form such rock as opal and jasper. the existence of "organic carbon" in the samples is a strong argument against petrifaction. No petrifaction, no petrified massive timbers. There is more on this in the other articles.

"David introduced the Molecular Frequency Generator into the research, and along with the equipment from Whites Electronics, it identified the massive structure of a boat enclosed within the boat formation!" Chapter 2

How many people know the difference between data and interpretation of the data? It is obvious that either Wyatt did not know the difference, or he has counted on the ignorance of the general public.

The data does not prove the existence of a massive structure within the anomaly. It is only through interpretation of the data that Wyatt infers the existence of a structure.

"We surveyed the site with three types of metal detectors and two subsurface radar systems. Their data, along with core drilling samples, proved beyond any doubt that a VERY LARGE, (515 FEET) VERY ANCIENT BOAT (IDENTIFIED BY INSCRIPTIONS AS NOAH'S ARK) LIES WITHIN THE BOAT FORMATION!"

Did the core samples come up with wood, or even petrified wood? No. Did it come up with any man made objects? No. They only came up with the same soil as already known and found within the anomaly.

Do the detector and radar data prove a very large boat? No, and the data cannot do so. It is only through interpretation of the data that Wyatt claims that there is a boat. This is not proof, but interpretation. The data merely shows differences in density and hardness of the soil.

What and where are the inscriptions? Are they Wyatt's interpretations of the "anchor stone inscriptions?" If so they are very suspect because of conflict of interest. He had a vested interest in interpreting the inscriptions as having to do with Noah's Ark.

So here at the end of Chapter 2 of the on-line book, and where is the evidence? Have we found the answer to why Wyatt was convinced in the first place? No! Have we found evidence which correspond to the descriptions provided by the Bible? No. All of this supposed evidence can only be interpreted as having to do with Noah's Ark if and only if you FIRST ASSUME that this anomaly is the Ark. Only then could the data found be interpreted as being from the Ark. However, this evidence cannot be used to prove that the anomaly is the ark, because it is a logical fallacy to attempt to prove what you have already assumed.

If we want to be able to prove something is Noah's Ark, we must be able to show that it fits ALL of the above descriptions gotten from the Bible. Thus far in the book Wyatt has not done so.