The on-line article which is critiqued here is largely a summary of what has been present before. However, I'm going to take each point below and critique it as I have done before. After a sentence or two or perhaps a whole section I note the basic problems with them. And I list again here for our convenience the Biblical description by which we can identify 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) Gen. 8
------------------------
In 1993, an article appeared in the Australian creationist magazine, "Ex-Nihilo", in which the authors attempted to discredit the ark. I wrote a rebuttal, providing certain documents as evidence that the writers of this article did not check out the facts. We are, however, unable to include the 20 pages of accompanying documentation, and have to limit it severely. These are documented in our video, "Discovered- Noah's Ark".
by Mary Nell Wyatt
(First published in Newsletter No. 5, dated October 1993)
(Allegations are first listed, and then evidence is produced in rebuttal.)
1) CLAIM THAT THERE ARE OTHER "BOAT-SHAPED" FORMATIONS IN THE AREA:
Page 27- In reference to the original 1950's photographs of the ark taken during a NATO survey of the area, they claim: "However, this particular boat-shape is far from unique. The Turkish Air Force released another photograph (see page 32) several years ago showing three similar boat-shapes in the mudflow material on the footslopes of nearby Lesser Mount Ararat."
RESPONSE- In the NATO surveys of this area of Turkey, which were done in the 1950's, every inch of this section of eastern Turkey was photographed by high-altitude aircraft. ... Had there been any other formations even remotely similar in shape, these would have been detected in these surveys, which were very carefully examined.
Careful examination of the photo presented in the article [CENTJ] will show that it has been touched up. This has been verified by the person who did the touch-up work. ...
Dr. Baumagardner stated: "We feel the formation is quite unique. There's several formations that have a superficially similar shape and we've investigated several of them. And they, uh, as we investigate them, we find they do not have the special characteristics we find in the site we've been focusing on." So here, on nationwide television, Dr. Baumgardner clearly states that the site he, Ron, David and the others in the team were working on was unique.
The CENTJ article did not claim that the other 3 formations were exactly like the one Wyatt call the Ark. They merely say that the "boat shape is not unique." This is the same thing which Baumgardner says,"a superfically similar shape." Wyatt claims that his "Ark" is the only one which looks like a boat. This is false as Baumgardner admits. Wyatt's "Ark" may have 'Special chatacteristices' which is unique, but being 'boat shaped is not one of them.
2) CLAIM THAT THE METAL READINGS WERE RANDOM, NOT REGULAR:
Page 28- The article states as fact that the metal readings were random, not regularly spaced: "Using a standard beachcombing type metal detector (the type with a disc-shaped detector head on the end of a long pole) `hotspots' were indeed found, but these were randomly distributed and not in a regular pattern along lines."
RESPONSE- In the above referenced CBN interviews in #1, the statement is made by the newscaster: "...Using a metal detector, Baumgardner has been able to confirm the existence of metal at regular intervals."
In the newspaper article, "Noah's Ark- found?", the reporter writes of a speech John Baumgardner gave at Los Alamos National Labs: "Showing aerial slides which showed a striking boat-like shape, Baumgardner noted the Americans found an organized pattern of metal at the 6,300 foot elevation site with the aid of metal detectors. 'For me, it was quite an amazing discovery to find the pattern of metal,' he continued." ...
The claim of random or not random is basically a mute point. L.E. Collins provides a natural explanation for the linear alignment of limonite-magnetite concentrations in the anomaly. (Collins and Fasold, 1996,"Bogus 'Noah's Ark' form Turkey Exposed as a Common Geologic Structure," Journal of Geoscience Educaton, v. 44, pg. 439-444)
Following figure drawn from one in the above article:
3) CLAIM THAT THE MOLECULAR FREQUENCY GENERATOR IS "DIVINING ROD":
Page 29- Trying to claim that the molecular frequency generator is nothing but a "divining rod", they state: "Qualified scientists have been independently consulted about this gadget, which is generally advertised in treasure-hunting magazines, not scientific journals. They are unanimous that there are no scientific principles employed. Indeed, two of these scientists built and tested working models. The results of this technique can hardly be considered trustworthy, that brass welding rods being used in essence as divining rods, similar to the use of a forked stick to search for water."
RESPONSE- In 1988, Ray Brubaker, of "God's News Behind the News" in St. Petersburg, FL., asked an electrical engineer to research Ron's claims. This independent, non-biased research on the part of Terry Johnson of Tampa, FL, included research on the molecular frequency generator: [description snipped].
Also, the EX NIHILO article condemning this device gives no names of the scientists who supposedly built and tested these devices. ... The molecular frequency generator we use is manufactured by Cochran and Associates of Bowling Green, Ky. and costs $6,500.00- quite a high price for a "divining rod".
Also, the location of metal on the site with the molecular frequency generator was identical to those located by ferromagnetic and pulse induction detectors, as well as the sub-surface interface radar. So, if you want to eliminate the molecular frequency generator scans, the results are still the same.
The scientific or non-scientific aspect of this device is irelevant. If it did locate the same magnetic objects as the other methods, this still does not prove that the anomaly is man-made nor the Ark. As stated above there a simply, and common natureal means which can explain the linear arrangements.
4) CLAIM THAT COMPLETE RADAR SCANS WERE NEVER DONE:
Page 29- Claims are made that the radar data is not accurate and that a scan of the entire boat never took place- they claim that the 1986 scans were incomplete and more were never done: "...,so the planned follow-up work to scan the whole formation never came to pass, at least not at the hands of Wyatt and Fasold, from all published accounts."
RESPONSE- Again, let us stress that this author never had access to any of our research- he only received 2nd hand reports from various people. To prove that other scans were done, we have attached a copy of one of Ron's radar permits from 1987 (right). This is positive proof that there were scans that these people have no idea about. And there were numerous scans, not just one.
Radar scans, completed or not, do not of themselves prove the anomaly to be the Ark. It is only interpretation of the data which is being used as evidence for the Ark. This evidence in not considered hard evidence.
5) CLAIM THAT GSSI DOES NOT BELIEVE THE OBJECT IS MAN-MADE:
Page 30- The claim is made that the manufacturer of the radar scanner, GSSI of Hudson, NH, states that they do not believe the formation to contain man-made structure: "Fenner goes on to indicate that neither he nor GSSI believes the formation to be manmade."
RESPONSE- ...In the article, Joe Rosetta, the retired vp of GSSI (and also Tom Fenner's boss at the time) is quoted: "Although Rosetta would not reveal his opinion about Wyatt's claim, he said of the buried object, ~You'd never see anything like that in natural geology....Some human made this structure, whatever it is."
We also recently received another advertisement on the GSSI radar which again mentions it's use on the Noah's Ark site: "GSSI systems have traveled to Egypt to search for underground tombs 4,000 years old, to Turkey to locate the true resting place of Noah's Ark, and to the Arabian peninsula to find the site of an ancient city that was a spice-trading center."
Joe Rosetta also appeared on the Hudson NH television channel 9 in an interview in which he states, while displaying the actual scan from the ark, which we show in our presentations: "This data is not, does not represent natural geology- its a man-made structure. These reflections are occurring very periodic, too periodic to be random natural-type interfaces."
The opinions of these people are simply opinions. The do not prove that what was found is really man-made.
6) CLAIM THAT THE DECK TIMBER ISN'T VERIFIED:
Page 31- The claim is made that the deck timber has not been tested, etc. We have extensive testing done on this sample, most of which will remain confidential until we are finished working. However, we can positively prove that the lab tests prove it to contain organic carbon, and that it has been examined by thin section under electron microscope.
RESPONSE- In our video can be seen testing on the deck timber at Galbraith Labs,- testing for total carbon, which includes both organic and inorganic, and then testing for only inorganic. ... The timber was taken to Teledyne-Allvac labs where it was examined by electron microscope in 1992. I personally videoed the entire process, including the entire process with the electron microscope- filming the screens as they were viewed. We have all of these results filed along with photographs of the thin sections, etc. We also have a very large number of witnesses as well, as Richard Rives of Matthews, NC accompanied us, and numerous personnel of Teledyne witnessed the work and are all on video.
"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." (op cite. pg. 441) Pebbles and boulders can be angular and flat sided.
7) CLAIM THAT RON "MADE UP" STORY THAT THE TURKS FOUND ARTIFACTS ON THE SITE:
PAGE 33- Trying to refute the claim that Turkish scientists found 4 foot long metal rods: "As for the report of the Turkish archaeologists finding eight pairs of long forked metal rods, etc., the only source of that story is Wyatt himself."
RESPONSE- In the article referred to earlier of the John Baumgardner report at Los Alamos Labs (appendix A) it is stated: "Since the American team's August visit the Turkish government has sent an archaeological group to the site and recovered four-foot-long iron spikes, petrified wood and other metal objects, Baumgardner said." As a scientist, he isn't going to report to Los Alamos Labs something he doesn't know to be fact.
Where is the Turkish documentation for these claims? What is Baumgardners source?
Iron spikes, forked metal rods, metal objects are on the Bibilical identification list. Real or not, they cannot be used to identify Noah's Ark because they are not on the list.
8) CLAIM THAT RON "PLANTED" ARTIFACTS ON THE SITE:
PAGE 33- Several claims are made that Dr. Bayraktutan, a member of the Noah's Ark Commission, does not support Ron's claims. They even state that he accuses Ron of "planting" artifacts on the site: "...not only most emphatically does not support this and other claims, but is at pains to dissociate himself from almost all of Wyatt's claims about the site, expressing grave doubts about how much of Wyatt's "evidence" actually found its way on to the site".
RESPONSE- In late July of 1992, I personally was with Ron when he met with Dr. Bayraktutan in Erzurum, Turkey in the dining room of the Grand Erzurum Hotel. I witnessed the entire conversation and personally asked him questions about certain things. He told us that 2 individuals had done a core drill in 1988 and still owed the Turkish government quite a large amount of money resulting from the cost of building a road to take the core drill equipment onto the site, plus the cost of the equipment. The last statement he made as we stood up to walk out was, "We are still 100% sure it is the ark- don't worry." Salih Bayraktutan is on the Noah's Ark Commission, but he isn't the head of it. Ron deals directly with the various ministries in Ankara.
As to the accusation that Ron's samples "made their way on to the site", we have a signed statement from witnesses who were present (our 1990 tour group) when Ron found the fossilized rivet. I, myself, found the animal hairs; Greg Brewer found the antler; Dr. Nathan Meyers found one of the chunks of ballast- none of these were found secretly- all were in the presence of numerous people.
Who suports who is irrelevant. And people's opinions are irrelevant. Rivits, animal hair, antlers, chunks of ballast are not the on the Biblical identification list. They are unimportant.
9) CLAIM THAT THE RIVET IS JUST "BASALT":
PAGE 32- Claims are made to try to discredit the fossilized rivet found by Ron. They try to "explain" it as being basalt.
RESPONSE- We will quote a part of a lab report from Teledyne-Allvac. The report includes a paragraph which is extremely important. Any questions relating to the work done at this lab will be answered when we release our data. As mentioned earlier, I personally videoed all work in progress, including their taking the samples to be tested, etc. This paragraph reads: "It is interesting to note that location 1 (presumably fossilized timber members) was found to contain much higher carbon (- 1.9%) than location 2 (presumably fossilized metal)."
The significance of this is: one sample was taken of the actual metal rivet. This section was tested twice and showed carbon content of .14% and .13%. Then, a mere cm. away, a sample was taken of the area around the metal impression. This showed carbon content of 1.88% and 1.97% in the two tests done on it. This shows that within a cm., we have an area that contains almost 15 times more carbon as 1 cm adjacent to it! Whether these folks want to admit it or not, this is as positive evidence as you can get that this fossilized object- whatever it is, even if a person wants to reject it being a rivet- this is evidence that it is 2 distinct structures. One with minute amounts of carbon in it, while right next to it, an object with 15 times more carbon in it- enough to have been once living matter.
Much more evidence on this rivet will be revealed only after Ron is completely through with his research, including the presence of organic carbon, which is not present in basalt.
The make up of the "rivet" is irrelevant. There are no rivets listed in the Biblical identification list.
10) CLAIM THAT THE ANCHOR STONES WERE ACTUALLY MADE BY ARMENIANS:
PAGE 34- Efforts are made to discredit the anchor stones, saying they were made by Armenians, etc. They claim that there is evidence that these once had other inscriptions on them besides the crosses, and that these pagan inscriptions were removed at a later date and replaced by Christian crosses. They also claim these are again, basalt. "This is no mere conjecture, as those who have examined these stelae report that there is evidence of an earlier defacement."
RESPONSE- The most interesting thing about this report is that they mention numerous people and scientists who have "examined" this and that, but no names are ever given. Not too many people have actually seen these anchor stones. Many of these stones, no one has seen but Ron because he is the only person who knows where they are. ...
[snip of ultraviolet tests]
[snip about burried stone]
... As to the type of rock that these are made of, since we can't bring one home, we can't prove the type they are made of any more than can the unnamed persons who "examined these" in the report. We will document the taking of a small sample of one of them so that there will be no doubt as to the validity of the sample when it is verified by scientific testing.
Drogue stones are not mentioned in the Biblical identification list, so they are irrelevant when it comes to identifying Noah's Ark. As for the type of rock they are made up of:
"I also made a thin section of one of the 'anchor drogues' and obtained a chemical analysis to see if these stones could have been quarried by Noah in Mesopotamia..."
"The 'anchor stone at Kazan (Arzap) is a fine-graned porphyritic volcanic rock in which phenocrysts consist of ~6% ilmentic magnetite and ~29% plagioclase...."
"Volcanic rocks similar to the andesitic 'anchor stones' occur in the area surrounding Mt. Ararat. ..." (op cite., pg. 441)
11) CLAIM THAT THE BALLAST IS JUST MANGANESE NODULES FROM THE SEA FLOOR:
PAGE 33- The claim is made that the manganese samples have never been examined by thin section: "However, no microscope thin section has been produced to show whether the samples collected and claimed to be slag do in fact have the internal texture and mineral composition of a true slag."
RESPONSE- In fact this certainly has been done. We have in our possession photos and lab analyses which John Baumgardner had done at Los Alamos of numerous samples. One of these samples was of the ballast material. In his own handwriting, Dr. Baumgardner wrote on the report: "tailing of aluminum aloid production" and signed it "John Baumgardner, Los Alamos". He sent these reports to Ron and we have them on file.
[data about nodules snipped]
Ballast is not mentioned in the Biblical identification list and so all this is irrelevant to identifying Noah's Ark.
12) CLAIM THAT TURKEY DOES NOT RECOGNIZE THE SITE:
PAGE 35- Claims are made that no Turkish announcement has been made about Noah's Ark.
RESPONSE- Attached (right) you will find a copy of the Turkish newspaper article in the "Hurriyet", the largest Turkish newspaper, dated June 21, 1987. It is translated in the front of Ron's book, "Discovered- Noah's Ark, but you may want to have your own done.
Also, Turkish tourism literature, which we picked up in Ankara in August of 1989, as well as later years, advertises Noah's Ark, complete with a photograph of the site.
As to the highway, at the dedication ceremony on June 20, 1987, at which Ron was guest of honor, plans were shown him of the visitors center and of the planned highway. David Fasold mentions this in his newsletter. This highway was not to go up into the mountain to the actual ark site- it was to lead to the cutoff that leads up into the mountain. The Turks had anticipated a great influx of tourists to the area and the present road was insufficient to handle the expected traffic, especially of buses. However, because of the extreme attacks by the Mt. Ararat ark hunters, the US tourists never came to pass, at least not in large numbers. The road construction began in 1988 and was never completed. Then, the area became quite dangerous for tourists due to terrorist activity. Our statements made about the road construction were based on what the Turks told Ron and David Fasold. We documented the beginning of the highway construction in 1989 on video, where they moved all the power and telephone lines over, and actually began laying asphalt that was in places 14-18" deep. But when we returned in 1990, it was not completed.
A newspaper article about the Turks' acceptance of the site as Noah's Ark is criticized in the article simply because it was in a Nashville newspaper- the implication being that the reporter was biased. However, the reporter spoke personally with Turkish officials in both New York and Ankara. He also interviewed John Baumgardner for the article.
13) CLAIM THAT LATER WORK DISPROVED THE SITE:
PAGE 36- This section attempts to use geologic survey work done in 1987 and 1988 by John Baumgardner with Dr. Bayraktutan to prove that this isn't Noah's Ark, or that it is even man-made structure.
RESPONSE- We have a copy of the July 1987 radar survey done- it claims to be written jointly by John Baumgardner and Dr. Bayraktutan. In July 1992, I took a copy of this to Turkey and when Ron met with Dr. Bayraktutan, I myself showed it to him and asked him to verify that it was indeed the official documentation of that survey. He told me it was. I will quote from that report: "We conclude that the data from our geophysical investigations in no way conflict with the proposition that the unusual boat-shaped site near Mahser village contains the remains of Noah's Ark."
As to the evidences of the core-drilling in 1988 by Dr. Baumgardner, the following excerpt is from one of his "newsletters": "Another notable discovery was the presence at three locations in the mudflow layer of nodules of the bright yellow mineral limonite. Limonite is a hydrated oxide of iron, and its occurrence in this environment appears to be anomalous. Just how anomalous is the crucial question, since the minerals in the rocks in the source area of the mudflow have a moderate iron content. However, during the months now that I have worked at the site, I have never seen this bright yellow material anywhere in the fissures or exposures in the mudflow clay. Because earlier investigations led us to suspect unusual amounts of iron in the site, these occurrences of limonite are of special interest as they could represent the rusted remains of metallic iron objects."
"In the field, the supposed iron brackets have the outward appearance of pieces of black, metalic, elemental iron. The black shiny surfaces, however, are characteristic of goethite (crystalline limonite, a hytrated iron oxide.) This mineral is associated in the "structure" with black, ilmenitic, magnetitie granules, and possibly pyrite or pyrrhotite because locally some sulfur is reported in Chemical analyses. Both magnetite and goethite cause a metal detector to buzz just like elemental iron."
Limonite is yellow, but when in crystalline form such as goethite, it is black. Baumgardner's quote shows that limonite is found both in and out side the anomly.
Prior to this article, we received a lot of phone calls from people in Australia trying to get us to reveal certain evidences. We will not be bullied into revealing all of our research until we are finished with our work. We suspect that this was one of the reasons for this article, since these people had been trying to get us to reveal things we would not reveal to them. We show evidences that we have released, in our presentations, including lab work in progress, etc. The writer of this article doesn't even give the names of so-called "scientists" who claim to have examined the anchorstones and built molecular frequency generators.
Several people who once believed so strongly that this was Noah's Ark have fallen under the pressure from these types of people who wrote this article. Scientists and leading people of a community who step out and make a statement that they believe something like Noah's Ark are alienated from their scientific community. Many are not willing to chance losing their livelihood, and this is a choice that they have made. This is why you probably will never find a scientist or archaeologist in this country who will make such a statement.
But scientific "fact" is always "fact" no matter how different people may interpret it. We gather this "scientific fact" and as it accumulates, we apply it to the Biblical account. We present it as we believe it to be, based on that accumulation of "facts". Whether a person accepts our conclusion is up to them.
What we need to identify Noah's Ark are evidences which correspond with the Biblical list of identifications. Nothing in this article settles the questions concerning the identification of Noah's Ark. It does not take pressure from others to be critical of the anomaly. It mearly takes some clear, logical thinking, something which was not allowed in the presence of Wyatt.