This is a critique of the 3rd chapter in Wyatt's on-line book. Between the list of evidences below, I note the basic problems with them. I'll list again here the Biblical description by which we can identify Noah's Ark for convenience:

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) Gen. 8

CHAPTER 3

A SUMMARY OF THE EVIDENCES

The reasons which convinced the Turkish government and POSITIVELY IDENTIFY THE REMAINS OF THE LARGE ANCIENT BOAT WITHIN THE BOAT FORMATION AS THOSE OF NOAH'S ARK are as follows:

1. The formation was positively identified as a boat by a number of skilled photogrammetry experts from a set of aerial photographs. In a quote from Rene Noorbergen's book "The Ark File", Dr. Arthur Brandenburger, professor of photogrammetry at Ohio State in Columbus, Ohio, stated after careful study of the photo of the site, "I have no doubt at all that this object is a ship. In my entire career I have never seen an object like this on a stereo photo."

There is a big difference between what one think one sees in a photo and what is reality. But besides that, the Bible does not describe the shape of the ark (streamlined or barge shaped), therefore any discussion about the shape of the anomaly is besides the point.

2. Twelve years of electronic and mechanical probing has positively identified it as a boat.

This data does not and cannot prove that this is the Ark. It is only through Wyatt's interpretation of the data that this anomaly is thought to be the Ark. All the data really shows is differences in density and composition.

3. Repeated chemical analysis of many different samples, taken at different times by different people and analyzed at different laboratories, positively prove it to be composed of very ancient wood and metal.

Chemical analysis cannot and does not prove nor explain the presence of elements within the sample. It is only Wyatt's interpretation, based on the "fact" that he knows this is the ark, by which the results of the chemical analysis results in wood planks and metal fittings. And none of this is part of the Biblical list of identifying features.

4. Samples of petrified wood have been located and taken from the structure in the presence of many witnesses. In addition to previous tests, I have additional samples which have metal brackets and rust, which were videoed as they were retrieved from the boat. I will have them tested at various testing facilities in the future and in the presence of witnesses.

Proposed petrified wood and "metal brackets" do not prove the Ark. The only one which might be on the identification list is wood. Is it Gopher wood? Who knows. It is by studying the grain and texture of petrified wood that geologists are able to identify the types of fossilized (petrified) wood.

5. A large number of ancient and medieval inscriptions near the site positively identify it as Noah's Ark. There will be more on these inscriptions in our later book, which will include photographs.

These inscriptions are interpreted by Wyatt, so they mean whatever he wanted them to mean. And, If by some strange chance, that they do refer to Noah and the Ark, the anomaly is not the only near by place where the Ark is thought to be. The mountain now called Ararat is just as close, if not closer than Wyatt's anomaly.

6. Its 515 foot length, its 138 foot width (splayed) are the measurements of Noah's Ark as recorded by Moses (educated to use the ancient Egyptian cubit) in the Book of Genesis. See an explanation under "Questions I Am Most Frequently Asked About Noah's Ark".

The length and width of the anomaly, assuming a splayed structure, are the only two identification points which are part of the Biblical identification list.

7. It is located in the mountains of Urartu (Ararat) as specified in the Bible.

Mount Ararat is also located in the mountains of Ararat.

8. Its location at an elevation of 6300 feet above sea level is above any possible height reachable by a "local flood" but is below the maximum water level that would result from all the water of our planet washing the earth's surface (7000-8000 feet).

The current elevations of the Ararat region is much higher than before or during the Flood. Most mountains were raised up during the latter part of the flood. The region of Ararat is a collision zone between about 3 continental plates and it was pushed upward from the pressures of the continental motions. So, what ever elevations exist there now, are not relevant to that before or during the Flood.

If all the ice on the planet were to melt, the oceans would only be raised by 300 feet, not 7 to 8 thousand feet.

9. Its location, many miles from any present or ancient body of water that would support it, defies any other explanation.

This also applies to the location of Mount Ararat.

10. Its massive size and weight make it impossible that it could have been "trundled" (dragged) this distance from water, and its altitude above present and past sea levels defies any other explanation.

There is another explanation, it is simply a geologic anomaly as David Fasold finally admitted when confronted with real evidence.

11. Contrary to a touched up photograph, which has been widely circulated, it's the only formation of its kind on planet earth, other than remains of other ancient boats of much smaller size.

Documentation, documentation, documentation! This accusation requires documentation. No documentation, no validity. I have seen several different photos of Ararat and similar formations appear in them.

12. Your writer, in the presence of Turkish authorities and other observers, performed an electronic survey of a site that some of our critics said resembled the boat formation (the similarities were vague at best, nonexistent in actuality); the metal detectors and sub-surface radar scans showed nothing in the site that were not present anywhere in the area.

The existence or non-existence of metal is totally irrelevant. Metal is not mentioned as part of the Biblical identification list.

13. A careful electronic survey of the area around the formation showed none of the structures present in the formation.

Totally irrelevant. Metal is not on the identification list.

14. Chemical analysis of the area around the formation showed only normal traces of the metallic oxides and organic carbon which are present in large amounts in the formation.

Totally irrelevant. Metal, or the lack of metal, is not a part of the identification list.

15. Train-loads of petrified wood are present in the formation, but there is little to be found in the rest of eastern Turkey.

Christian geologists, who actually know what petrified wood is, have been unable to find ANY petrified wood within the anomaly. And,

"Similar samples recovered by him [Fasold] from areas claimed by others to be rib timbers, planking, and deck beams are also andesite or basalt pebbles or boulders and show no evidence of petrified wood." (Collins, F.G. & Fasold, D.F., 1996, "Bogus 'Noahs's Ark' from Turkey Exposed as a common Geolgic Structure," Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 44, p. 439-444) Pebbles and boulders can be angular and flat sided.

16. Many ancient historians record that the remains of Noah's Ark were to be visited in this area.

The same can hold true for the idea that the Ark is on Mt. Ararat.