In Sept. 1960, 27 year old Ron Wyatt, along with thousands of
other people, read an article in
"Life" Magazine about a strange boat-shaped formation in the
mountains of Ararat:
||RON WYATT'S ORIGINAL
2 hour DVD documenting Ron's entire story of the discovery
with authentic footage of all aspects of the field work,
including his 1st visit in 1977; graphics explaining the
processes which preserved the remains; scientific testing as
it took place, and much more.
Click Here to Purchase...
Boatlike form is seen near Ararat.
While routinely examining aerial photos of his country, a Turkish
army captain suddenly gaped at the picture shown above. There, on a
mountain 20 miles south of Mt. Ararat, the biblical landfall of
Noah's Ark, was a boat-shaped form about 500 feet long. The captain
passed on the word. Soon an expedition including American scientists
set out for the site.
At 7,000 feet, in the midst of crevasses and landslide debris,
the explorers found a clear, grassy area shaped like a ship and
rimmed with steep, packed-earth sides. Its dimensions are close to
those given in Genesis: `The length of the ark shall be 300 cubits,
the breadth of it 50 cubits, and the height of it 30 cubits,' that
is, 450x75x45 feet. A quick two-day survey revealed no sign that the
object was man made. Yet a scientist in the group says nothing in
nature could create such a symmetrical shape. A thorough excavation
may be made another year to solve the mystery."
Ron's Decision is Made
At that time, Ron determined that one day, he would visit the
site and see for himself. But that was a dream he could scarcely
realize any time soon. He had a 1 year 4 month old daughter, a 3
month old son, and within a year and a month, he would have another
son. Working as a lab technician in the quality control lab at
Hercules Powder Plant in Kalamazoo, Michigan, he was also attending
Western Michigan University, studying pre-med. But soon, family
matters forced him to give up his hopes of becoming a doctor and he
moved to Kentucky in 1964 where he entered nursing school. He
graduated in 1967, entered Anesthesia School and graduated as a
Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetist in 1970.
It was also in 1970 that he found himself raising his 3 young
children alone. It didn't look like there would ever be any
opportunity for him to visit the strange boat-shaped site, so he had
to limit his archaeological research to libraries and book stores.
But he never lost interest- in fact, he studied everything
concerning ancient history and archaeology, not just subjects
concerning Noah's Ark. He had found that there was very little
information available on the subject of Noah's Ark,
which convinced Ron more than ever that no serious research had ever
been undertaken on the subject. Everything he had read was based on
folk-lore and unsubstantiated claims, and all claimed sightings were
in different locations.
Move to Hawaii
From 1973 to 1975, he and the children lived in Hawaii, where he
was able to study volcanoes first hand. This convinced him that if
the ark had landed on the volcanic peak called Mt. Ararat, that it
would have long ago been destroyed. Despite the fact that there are
those who have written elaborate explanations of how the ark could
have survived on the volcanic peak, within a few years, the eruption
of Mount St. Helens would soon show that NOTHING could survive on a
volcanic mountain such as Ararat. If the ark had ever been there, he
concluded it would have long ago been destroyed.
"Building Mountains" in a Stream
Moving back to the mainland in 1975, he decided that there was
one form of research that he could do- he built
a small boat model the same ratio as the ark as stated in the
Bible, and then he built various "mountain" configurations in a
stream. By floating the model down the stream, he observed the
boat's reaction as it approached the various shaped "mountains".
What he learned was that when the boat approached a simple peak
extending out of the water, it simply floated around it, not
approaching it or certainly not landing on it. This was the "lateral
displacement" of obstructed gas or liquid flow.
He continued this experiment with several shapes with the same
result each time. That is, until he built a "crescent-shaped"
formation with the crescent facing down-flow. When the boat
accelerated around this "crescent-shape" mountain, he saw that it
was pulled into the area within the crescent by the "eddy" effect,
where it then gently floated within that area. With this bit of
information, Ron felt like the ark would have had to have landed on
such a location. The laws of hydrodynamics and water action and
reaction were the same then and now. If the ark had approached a
mountain peak extending out of the water, the water displacement
around the mountain would have carried the ark with it.
NOAH'S ARK- The Action Years
by Mary Nell Wyatt
(First published in newsletter # 9
Ron and Dave Fasold arrived in Turkey on March 20, 1985. Meeting
them in Ankara was Samran Al Moteri, the Saudi Arabian prince who
had come to visit Ron earlier in Madison, Tennessee. He had heard
about Ron's claim that Mt. Sinai was in his region of Saudi by some
of Ron's captors in '84, and he wanted Ron to show him the mountain.
Perhaps to check out Ron's veracity, he wanted to see this so-called
"Noah's Ark", and then he would arrange for Ron and Dave to enter
his country. But Samran was quite ill when they arrive, so the men
couldn't leave for Dogubeyazit right away.
Turkey's Leading Archaeologist, Ekrem Akurgal
While they waited in Ankara, Mine Unler, one of Ron's liaisons
with the Turkish government, arranged for a meeting with Dr. Ekrem
Akurgal, Turkey's leading archaeologist, world famous for his work
on the Hittite excavations throughout Turkey. In Oct. of 1984, the
Turks had sent their own archaeologists to investigate the
"boat-shaped object" and Dr. Akurgal had carefully studied their
reports. Ron had loaned the Turkish scientists one of the White's
ferro-magnetic metal detectors and their expedition had yielded very
positive results, as one of them showed Ron their field notes. They
had retrieved several 4 foot long metal "spikes" which were still
intact, but which Ron never got to actually see, as he was told they
were taken to the Museum of Mines and Minerals in Ankara. They had
also gotten the same pattern of metal readings that Ron had gotten.
"It is, at any rate, a ship..."
When Ron spoke with Dr. Akurgal, in a conversation which Dave
videoed, he stated that "it is, at any rate, a ship". A ship
for which there was no earthly explanation for, which was of a size
not known until recent history, and which was many miles from any
body of water. A professed atheist, Dr. Akurgal would later state in
an interview with the Turkish media that it was Noah's Ark.
When asked why, he simply replied, "because there is no
Things were going incredibly well, Ron thought! When Dr. Akurgal
presented him with a copy of his book, "Ancient Ruins of Turkey", he
wrote, "To Mr. Ron Wyatt, Congratulations for the successful
discoveries". With his strong endorsement of the discovery, Mine
Unler set about arranging a meeting for Ron later in Ankara in which
he would meet with all of the pertinent ministries at one time,
explaining his research.
Things had come a long way in the last 7 months, thanks to Jim
Irwin. Jim had introduced him to the Guleks, at whose house he had
met both Orhan Baser and Mine Unler, and he had referred Dave Fasold
to him. And although he had just met Dave, he could already tell
that Dave meant business, whatever he did. And Dave was already
excited about the site, even though he hadn't seen it yet.
Heading to the Site
Finally Samran recovered from his illness and they flew to
Erzurum where they hired a young taxi driver to take them to
Dogubeyazit- Dilaver Avci, who would become a trusted friend and
ally to both Ron and Dave. When they arrived at the ark site, the
excitement of both Dave and Samran was evident. Since there was
still snow on the ground, it was covered to a great extent, which
accentuated the "boat-shape".
Dave had brought both a pulse-induction metal detector, as well
as his molecular frequency generator (MFG), which he demonstrated by
picking up the metal readings from great distances. The conventional
metal detectors were only effective when within a few feet at the
most. Samran stood on the ark and spoke in Arabic while Dave videoed
him for his friends back home.
Then Ron took them to see the anchor stones and the village. Dave
could not contain his excitement- while Ron was a believer in the
ark of the Bible, Dave was a believer in the ark of the Gilgamesh
epic, and he was familiar with the Babylonian connections evident on
some of the stones. One example was the ziggurat carved on one of
A Sad Discovery
Everyone was happy, that is, until Ron took them to see the
tombstones and house he believed was Noah's and his wife's. When
they got there, the house was now reduced to a pile of loose rock,
and the tombstones were gone! And right where they once had stood
was a partially filled hole- the grave had been robbed! Ron was
heartsick. All that remained were small pieces of the huge stones
with petroglyphs of Noah, his family, the ship perched on a wave,
and a rainbow.
After examining these things, and the anchor stones in the
village, they left. Samran was convinced that Ron wasn't a kook, and
arranged for all 3 of them to fly to Saudi Arabia. Ron was thrilled.
Things were looking bright not only for Noah's Ark, but he got to
actually return to Mt. Sinai legally! He finally had someone
to work with on the ark who believed in it as much as he did, and
who was in a business that required him to be familiar with the
electronic equipment that was so vital to the research.
Back in Ankara- Ron's Meeting with the Turkish
When they returned to Turkey from Saudi, Dave was anxious to get
home and left as soon as he could. Ron arranged to stay 4 more days
so he could attend the meetings Mine Unler had arranged. He met with
all the ministries and presented his case for serious research on
Noah's Ark. Their response was very positive and he was assured that
they would cooperate with him as much as they could. Dave wanted to
bring over sub-surface interface radar and scan the site and Ron was
assured he would receive the proper permits.
Sub-Surface Interface Radar
This radar system would reveal any structure beneath the surface,
much like a cat scan. The radar can be tuned to various frequencies
which reflect various depths. Therefore, by scanning the same area
numerous times, each time using a different frequency, a
3-dimensional picture can be constructed. However, the radar and an
operator are very expensive to rent, and the idea of purchasing a
system was out of the question. But, it had to be the next step.
Excavation was still denied.
Red Tape, even in Turkey
A little less than a month later, Ron returned alone to Ankara
for more meetings, arranging for permits. Even employing the metal
detectors required a permit, and once the permit was issued in
Ankara, it had to then be taken to Agri, the capital of the eastern
region, where it was then processed. And this is where many problems
come up. Ankara is the head of the government, but the regional
governments like to think that they are, in fact, the final
word. Ankara is a very long way from Agri and Dogubeyazit- if any
problems arise with a permit in Agri, it could mean many days of
costly waiting and travel back to Ankara, even then, without the
assurance that the problem would be solved. So Ron spent a lot of
time in Ankara. He didn't want any problems to arise- not now.
UNDERSTANDING THE REMAINS OF NOAH'S
by Mary Nell Wyatt
(First published in newsletter # 9
The entire key to understanding the evidence which confirms that
this site DOES in fact contain the remains of Noah's Ark, is
understanding the condition of the remains. The "world" has a
preconceived notion of what they will accept, and that is:
- a recognizable wooden ship, (still intact after 4,300
- and the ship MUST be on the volcanic mountain known as Mt.
The concept of the ark's appearance has been further enhanced by
those who interpreted the fact that the ark had rooms to mean that
it had to look like a barge-shaped houseboat instead of a ship. This
concept has been based on the many claimed sightings of the ark on
Mt. Ararat- and not a single sighting is accompanied by any
The Ark- NOT Barge-Shaped
First of all, a barge-shaped vessel could not survive on the open
seas. Any sailor can tell you that. In fact, the idea is
preposterous. The oil tankers of today, which traverse the open
seas, have a hull which is NOT flat on the bottom, but instead is
rounded. The wave action of the stormy seas today cannot compare
with the turmoil of the open seas of the flood, which extended the
entire surface of the earth- if a barge-shaped ship today cannot
sail the ocean, erase the idea of a barge-shaped ark from your mind.
This simply IS NOT a possibility. If you want to research the
subject yourself, go to the library and look up "ships and
ship-building" and/or "fluid dynamics" or "hydrodynamics".
The "boat-shaped object" is not barge-shaped- it displays the
shape of a sea-going vessel. Therefore, from the beginning of its
discovery in the stereo-photo, it had this one feature already in
The Ark Would Not have Survived on Mt. Ararat
If the ark was a reality, then so was the flood (which destroyed
the entire face of the earth), and this means that the ark, IF it
survived until today, is the oldest structure on earth. Considering
the fragile state of wooden homes that were built even in the last
century, could we expect to find an intact ark, or even any remains
at all? Certainly not in the ever-moving glaciers on Mt. Ararat,
which continually flow and grind everything in their path into
Even if an object survived in the glaciers, could it survive the
incredible blasts of the past eruptions, the most
recent of which blew out an entire section of the mountain?
Again, go to the library and research "volcanoes" and "glaciers".
Read up on Mount St. Helens, whose last eruption was similar to the
last eruption which Mt. Ararat experienced, even leaving a similar
blown-out hole in the mountain. You will see the total devastation
suffered by everything on or around the mountain at that time.
In addition to this, the Turkish military has been training their
commandos on Mt. Ararat for many years, and they know every inch of
the mountain. They KNOW there is nothing up there.
How was the Ark Preserved?
The evidence found at the "boat-shaped object", which we will, in
complete confidence, refer to as "the ark", shows that the ark was
only preserved at all because it was covered in lava flow which
effectively sealed it in a sort of "time capsule". However, the
mountain it is on is NOT volcanic- the evidence shows that the lava
resulted from an eruption of a volcano many miles to the south in
The lava from that mountain was ejected into the air and carried
to the top of the ridge above the ark's present location. The
existence of this volcano is proven by the broken stele Ron found in
1984 upon this ridge which showed the unique limestone ridge with a
volcano positioned next to it to the south. Today, this volcano is
collapsed and cannot be seen except from the top of the ridge, not
from the viewpoint of the artist who inscribed the stele.
For the Record...
by Mary Nell Wyatt
(First published in newsletter # 16
in Sept. 1996)
During the course of Ron's work on the various projects, numerous
people have wanted to become involved. Some have felt Ron was
unqualified to continue the work because of his lack of credentials
and they pursued independent research without Ron.
While initially, some of these people declared a belief in the
validity of certain discoveries, they today have changed their
opinion. And we fully believe everyone has a right to their own
opinion. However, sometimes all of the facts concerning some of the
independent research isn't made available along with the "change of
opinion", so we felt it was time to discuss some of these matters.
Although we are supposed to meet opposition with the same meek
Spirit as Christ displayed, we are obligated to state the simple
facts so that people may have the means to make an intelligent
decision as to what they believe.
The 1987 Radar Scans
Jointly Sponsored by
Ataturk University and
Staff of Los Alamos National Labs
One month after the official dedication of Noah's Ark,
independent radar scans were performed on the site. We were given a
copy of what we were told was the "official" report of those scans.
However, to be sure it was authentic, I took a copy of it to Turkey
on our June 1992 tour and when Salih Bayraktutan met Ron and I in
Erzurum on our last afternoon there, I personally showed it to him
and asked if it was authentic. (I felt he would certainly know since
his name was listed as co-author of the report. Salih is a professor
at Ataturk University in Erzurum and is a member of the commission
that was established to study Noah's Ark.) He assured me it was the
official report. It is titled:
JULY 1987 GEOPHYSICAL INVESTIGATION OF
(DURUPINAR SITE) MAHER VILLAGE, DOUBAYAZIT,
JOHN R. BAUMGARDNER
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA
LOS ALAMOS NATIONAL LABORATORY
M. SALH BAYRAKTUTAN
FACULTY OF ENGINEERING
This report explains in highly technical language the process and
data of their radar scans, which were performed by
"geologist/radar operator Thomas Fenner" (p 6). The scans were
performed with an
"SIR System-8 ground penetrating radar manufactured by
Geophysical Survey Systems of Hudson, New Hampshire", whose
"antenna was dragged across the site on transects spaced two meters
apart. Radar pulses approximately 5 nanoseconds in width were
transmitted at a repetition rate of 50 kHz" (p. 2) with
"the radar operating at a frequency of 120 MHZ in order to achieve
the maximum penetration" (p. 8).
In summarizing the data, the report states:
"The most noteworthy feature observable in the data of Figure 7
is the V-shaped reflector that is particularly evident in the
transects between y=-6 m and y=-50 m. When the topographical
variation of the surface is taken into account, one finds that this
feature is almost planar in form. The large amplitude of the
back-reflected radar signal suggests a large contrast in the
dielectric properties of the two sides of a sharply defined
interface. The material above the interface presumably is the clay
soil observable at the ground surface and exposed to several meters
depth in the scarp surrounding the site and in cracks and gullies in
the adjacent mudflow environment.
The crucial issue is the type of material which lies below
the interface. Is it bedrock that rises up through the mudflow to
form something like a small island around which the flow moves? Or
is the material something other than bedrock. At least
two considerations suggest that it is not bedrock. The
first is that in the transects between y=2 m and y=20 m and x>0 in
the vicinity of the rock that outcrops at the surface, one does not
observe consistently strong reflections of a similar character. The
most likely candidate for the bedrock material is the calc-schist
rock that forms the hills on either side of the mudflow channel and
that comprises the outcrop near the middle of the site. Since the
low amplitude radar returns near the outcrop imply a small
dielectric contrast between the clay soil and calc-schist rock, the
strong reflections of the prominent V-shaped feature are probably
not caused by a transition from clay soil to a calc-schist bedrock.
A second consideration which argues that the material
below the reflecting interface may not be bedrock is that in several
scans, especially between y=-18 m and y=-38 m, there is a double
reflection, suggestive of a layer, rather than a simple transition
into a material many meters thick. To find such an
extensive, almost planar, layer buried within a channel through
which a huge volume of mudflow material has moved in a chaotic
fashion is highly anomalous from the standpoint of known landslide
and debris flow mechanics. If the layer pertains to a
buoyant man-made structure, the layer's present setting suggests
that the structure has been transported to the present location by a
landslide event where it was stranded upon the rock which now
outcrops near the middle of the site." (Pps. 8 & 10).
TALL TALES ABOUT "TALL TALES"
by Mary Nell Wyatt
(First published in newsletter # 16 in 1996)
There have been numerous "tales" about ark sitings throughout the
years- dozens of tales, all different places, all different details,
and etc., etc. But a good number of those who still believe the Ark
has to be on Mt. Ararat, and have rejected the evidence of
the true site, try to make the various stories all point to a
favored site on Ararat. There is no need to go over these various
stories as they are well known..
But there is one particular story that does need to be discussed
at this time. It will demonstrate quite clearly how tall tales "get
taller" and why we must be so very careful.
One person Ron took to the ark site became convinced it was the
true ark. (I won't mention his name because it is not our intention
to point him out- only to make known what occurred and how.) He had
read all the "ark tales" and believed one, in particular, had been
erroneously reported. He believed it was not a tale about an "ark
siting" on Ararat, as the story stated, but that it in fact referred
to the real site, 12 miles south of Ararat.
"Reshit, the Kurdish Farmer"
The article is seen at left, but in summary, the Nov. 13, 1948
Associated Press story presents about a Kurdish farmer named "Reshit"
who said he saw a ship resembling a house about 2/3 of the way up
Mt. Ararat. Supposedly, the unusually warm weather had caused the
ice and snow to melt enough that the "prow of a ship" was
"protruding into a canyon down which tons of melting ice and
snow had been rushing for more than two months".
FIBERS FROM NOAH'S ARK
by Richard Rives
(First published in newsletter # 4 in 1993)
In 1985 a six-inch hole was drilled into the side of the ark.
By way of that hole, matrix material samples were taken from
within a cavity. Careful examination of the samples with the
naked eye revealed fibers that appeared to be hair. Recently
these fibers were evaluated by a fiber expert in one of the
nations leading crime labs.
Under microscopic evaluation using both white and crossed
polars light, the fibers revealed all of the features
characteristic of mammal hair. Further, the hair was determined
to be that of an animal as was clearly indicated by a
unicellular medulla (center cell structure). "Color banding" was
also noted. "Color banding" is the change in color of the hair
from one end to the other; not uncommon to the mammal fur hair
of the Felidae (cat) family. Only a portion of the hair root
remained, however, the fibrous appearance of the remaining root
is indicative of the Felidae hair.
Other fibers from the matrix material were also evaluated.
One of the samples proved to be some sort of plant fiber as the
cellular structure was plainly visible.
Another hairlike fiber was evaluated which revealed very
unusual characteristics: the shaft of the fiber was long and
cylindrical like hair, but revealed none of the other
characteristics commonly associated with hair. Along the outer
surface of the fiber, angular spines extended from the shaft.
The specialists believed this to be some sort of plant fiber but
all agreed that they had never seen anything like it.
And finally, one of the fibers taken from the matrix had
neither animal nor plant characteristics. The specialists agreed
that if this fiber had been collected as modern day evidence,
there would be no hesitation in declaring it man-made!
The samples are in the process of being photographed under
microscopic enlargement so that this documentation can be shared
with other experts around the world. Hopefully, additional
conclusions can be reached as to the nature of the unusual
specimens that have not been positively identified.
Testing has been scheduled for choice hair samples which are
still in the matrix material and with a visible root still
intact. There is a remote possibility that DNA information may
be present and can be obtained from the remaining root.
Future plans call for carefully proceeding with scientific
evaluation using state-of-the-art technology. In the mean time,
we can humorously conclude that animals were definitely on
board Noah's Ark!
Laminated Wood on Noah's Ark
by Mary Nell Wyatt
(First published in newsletter # 1 in 1992)
Over the past fifteen years the Turkish government, through the
Noah's Ark Commission, has cooperated with Ron Wyatt on obtaining
and evaluating structural specimens from Noah's Ark. One of these
specimens was a piece of fossilized deck planking, which many of you
have seen on the up- dated Noah's Ark videos. The most recent news
in regards to this specimen is that thin sections have been cut from
this deck timber for microscopic examination. As you can see in the
photo that we have provided below, a corner section was cut out from
this incredibly hard fossilized deck timber.
The Aramaic root word for the Hebrew word "gopher wood" means
laminated wood (this is when layers of wooden boards are glued
together one upon another to provide extra strength), and when these
cuts were completed, it was plainly evident that at least this
portion of the deck planking is laminated wood!
The excess of the cementing substance (the "glue" used was resin,
which was made from tree sap) was squeezed out the end of the plank,
hardened, and has remained in the fossilized form. Until this cut
was made, it was merely assumed that the dripping material along the
outer edge was the pitch placed on the outer surfaces of the deck
timbers and the rest of the boat. But now the amazing fact has come
to light that the construction methods used by Noah to build the ark
included laminating. Further documentation will appear in an
up-dated version of the book "Discovered: Noah's Ark," and in the
up-coming video that we will release on Noah's Ark.
Who Decides if it is
By Mary Nell Wyatt
(First published in newsletter # 8 in 1994)
What do real archaeologists say about this? - do they think
its the ark? Well, there's no better answer than the one Richard
"Leading archaeologists and scientists say that the earth
is millions of years old and that you and I descended from a
It is our policy to ONLY ask experts in the various fields to
state facts about the evidence, such as the fact that there is
organic carbon in the specimens from the ark in an amount
consistent with the presence of once living matter, such as
decayed wood. We don't ask anyone to say this is Noah's Ark.
. There comes a time when people have to learn to think for
themselves. We've become lazy- we want to be told what to think;
we want someone to lay it all out for us. Life gets comfortable-
if we learn that Noah's Ark really existed, we may have to
adjust some of our other thinking and that may not be a real
There is the great example that we should never forget- the
people of Christ's time wanted a Messiah that was a regal king-
a glorious leader who would give them a wonderful kingdom on
earth. They wouldn't accept the Messiah that God sent to them-
He didn't match their expectations or their wants.
And so it is with Noah's Ark. The "learned men", like the
leading religious leaders of old Jerusalem, expect and want a
"glorious" barge-shaped ship" high on the volcanic peak of Mt.
Ararat- they won't accept the fragile remains He arranged to be
preserved in the manner and location that HE chose. "Well, if
these important people say its not the ark, then it must not
be". And after all, what does it really matter if the ark is
really found? It matters.
Something else that we must remember- there were many, many
common, simple-minded people in Christ's time who accepted Him
as the Messiah based on their OWN decision; based on what THEY
knew to be truth. They didn't need the "learned men and
religious leaders" to make their decisions for them. What kind
of a God would we have if He created us with a dependence on
others to make our decisions for us? Do we really believe that
we must have a scientist who is trained in and ingrained in
evolutionary science tell us what is truth?
I hate to tell you folks, but it would be like finding a lost
grain of sand in the ocean to find a scientist who would step
forward and say that Noah's Ark had been found. One scientist
that Ron took to the site, went on the television and said he
believed this was most likely Noah's Ark- in fact, he said that
he personally believed that it was. Yet, he later told Ron that
the facility he worked for told him he could either work for
them OR work on Noah's Ark. Today, this man is a vehement
opponent of the site. Did the facts change? NO. Only his
statement of opinion. This is a decision that the common folk
will have to make for themselves.
But what about all the fancy and complicated scientific
testing- how do we understand what it all means? It's not
complicated at all. Ron made his living for 4 1/2 years doing
complicated chemical analyses for Hercules Powder Company. He
now has these analyses done at reputable laboratories. The
results are FACT, untainted by "managed results".
If the tests show evidence of decayed or petrified wood, that
If the metal detector scans show the presence of iron at
regularly-spaced intervals, this is FACT.
There is scientific FACT and then there is THEORY. The
boat-shaped object is shaped like a ship and it is the size of
the Biblical ark, as translated into Royal Egyptian cubits. This
is fact. It contains metal at even intervals- this is FACT.
"THEORY" is that it is an old replica of the ark, built in
the time of Constantine, or that it is an old fortress. It is
also "THEORY" that it is Noah's Ark. Circumstantial evidence.
Like a court case, YOU decide, after sufficient evidence is
presented, what it is. Just be very careful to separate the
THEORY from the FACT.
We believe this is Noah's Ark and we are so convinced based
on the tremendous amount of evidence that we will state our
belief without hesitation. Others will state without hesitation
that it is NOT the ark. It will ultimately come down to the fact
of whether you believe it is within the realm of possibility for
something to "look like a duck, quack like a duck, give birth to
baby ducks, swim like a duck, and yet NOT BE A DUCK". (Thanks to
David Fasold for the metaphor).
"For by Thy Words Thou Shalt Be
and By Thy Words Thou Shalt Be
Condemned" Mat 12:37
by Mary Nell Wyatt
(First published in newsletter # 11 in 1995)
There have been those who have been critical of Ron's
discoveries. Honest criticism (when informed of the evidences) and
personal opinion are the right of every individual. However,
untruths and "half-truths" told by those who dispute the validity of
the discoveries MUST be countered with the real and "whole" truth.
Why? Because we believe that God has revealed these things for a
purpose- HIS purpose, and that purpose is to vindicate His Word and
His Truth. We have seen many people's lives changed after seeing
these evidences, and we cannot allow others to speak words of deceit
against them without making the truth available.
Recently a book came out called "The Incredible Discovery of
Noah's Ark" by Sellier and Balsiger of "Sun International"- the
same people who produced the documentary of the same name which
aired on CBS in Feb. 1993. It is full of twisted tales and untruths
clearly designed to try to discredit the real Noah's Ark. And I am
sorry to have to present just a few evidences to show how completely
unreliable this book is.
In 1992, we received numerous calls from Mr. Balsiger's office
requesting the use of some of our photos and video in a
"documentary" they were making on Noah's Ark. We told them we were
not interested. In this "documentary", they featured all of the
usual eye-witness "ark stories", none of which was backed-up by a
single piece of hard evidence, except for one- the story of "George
Jammal". I will now quote from TIME MAGAZINE, July 5, 1993, page 51,
under title, "Phony Arkaeology" in one of many news reports about
"`This piece of wood is so precious- and a gift from
God.' These moving words were spoken reverently by George
Jammal as he displayed the relic that he said had come from
Noah's ark.... What the network didn't know- and didn't
bother to find out- was that Jammal was a hoaxer and that
large segments of its program were based on blatant and
ludicrous pseudo science.... In fact, Jammal... has never
been on Mount Ararat. ....[Jammal's] supposed venerable
chunk of "ark" wood is a piece of contemporary pine Jammal
soaked in juices and baked in the oven of his Long Beach,
California, home.... But Jammal's tall tale was not the only
misleading part of the special. Sun filled the two hours
with a mixture of fact, conjecture, fantasy and arrant
nonsense, while offering no clues as to which was which....
...Larue [Gerald Larue, a professor emeritus of biblical
history and archaeology at the University of Southern
California] had been interviewed for an earlier Sun
International production, and, after seeing that show, felt
he had been set up as a straw man. It inspired him to
coach George Jammal, an acquaintance, to perpetrate the
hoax, intended to expose the shoddy research of Sun
International... CBS defended it's role. `When we bought
the special,' says a spokeswoman, `it was as an
entertainment special, not a documentary.'..."
All through this book can be seen the same stories, (with
Jammal's left out)- every kind of "word of mouth" claim is
dramatically presented without tangible evidence. Then, in chapter
13 the tone changes from one of objectivity to disdain when speaking
"The claims of self-proclaimed biblical archaeologist Ron
Wyatt are nothing short of astonishing...."
They then list Ron's discoveries, the last of which reads-
"Noah's wife's grave. He claims he dug her up and found $75
million worth of gold in her grave-unfortunately later stolen by
Ron has NEVER claimed he dug up this grave. See page 23 of his
book, "Discovered: Noah's Ark". These authors quote from Ron's book
(their footnote on p. 293) which shows that they had the true facts
but chose instead to make this libelous remark.
This book, while presenting all the theories about Noah's Ark
which are based on no evidence other than eye-witness claims, (none
of which agree with each other), then states about Ron,
"The bottom line seems to be that no hard evidence exists to
prove any of his claims. When contacted during the preparation of
this book, he refused to cooperate by supplying any evidence
supporting his claims, whether related to the alleged ark site or
any of his other finds."
This is simply not true. They never contacted us again after 1992
(when they ONLY asked for pictures and video of Noah's Ark for use
in their documentary, which we refused to provide). They NEVER
contacted us asking for information on ANYTHING ELSE for a book. And
it is not true that "he [Ron] refused to cooperate by supplying
any evidence supporting his claims, whether related to the alleged
ark site or any of his other finds. These are simply false
claims. No information was ever requested, nor were we even
They go on to quote other people to refute the "evidence" which
they claim Ron didn't have to start with. They quote John
Baumgardner as saying that he doesn't believe in the pattern of
metal lines in the site because he doesn't believe in the technique
David Fasold used, which he called "a form of dowsing"- this refers
to the molecular frequency generator. We have no problem with his
stating his opinion; however, we want ALL of the facts told. What
they DON"T tell you is that Ron found the metal lines in 1984 using
conventional White's metal detectors AND that John and Ron used
conventional metal detectors to verify the readings of the molecular
frequency generator (mfg), (and this can be seen in both David's
video, "1985 and 1986 Field Surveys", and our video, "Discovered-
Noah's Ark." If you completely discount the use of the "mfg", the
evidence of the metal lines is still present and verified by the
conventional metal detectors.
Then, they quote him talking about the results of some later
tests he participated in at the site using radar and taking core
drills specimens, which led him to state:
"I've concluded that it's only a natural formation".
Yet, in his official report dated November 1987 on radar scans in
July of that year, he wrote:
"We conclude that the data from our geophysical investigation
in no way conflict with the proposition that the unusual boat-shaped
site near Mahser village contains the remains of Noah's Ark."
After the core drills done in 1988, in his Aug. 19, 1988 form
letter, he discussed finding "limonite" which is "hydrated oxide of
iron" in the core drill specimens taken from the site:
"...during the months I have worked at the site, I have never
seen this bright yellow material [limonite] anywhere in the fissures
or exposures in the mudflow clay [the area around the ark site].
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."
Furthermore, in this letter, written AFTER the tests which he
claims led him to no longer believe in the site, he writes:
"We still cannot rule out the scenario that the ark of Noah
had landed previously higher on the slope and during the mudslide
event was swept downslope and caught on this ridge-shaped island of
AFTER he had completed these tests, he still maintained that the
results did not disprove that the site DID contain the ark.
They again quote him regarding a specimen he took from the site
in 85, analyzed and reported was almost pure iron oxide- he sent the
the analysis to Dave Fasold, which showed 60% - 91.84% FE2O3. Now
keep in mind that he stated in his 1988 letter that he saw NO
limonite (oxidized iron) OUTSIDE of the site and that it's presence
IN THE SITE was :
"of special interest as they could represent the rusted
remains of metallic iron objects".
But now, his conclusions are all different:
"There's absolutely nothing about this sample that would
suggest it has anything to do with human activity or that it's
He has a right to his opinion, however the true facts are NOT
presented to the reader. The test results have not changed. The
pattern of metal readings is still present whether he believes the
mfg is "dowsing" or not. Iron is found within the site but NOT
directly outside of it.
Then, there is the claim that
"Dr. Shockey, ark expeditioner and cultural
anthropologist",..."actually clandestinely tested a chip off the
`petrified wood exhibit' Wyatt shows at his speaking engagements....
The lab test results: `This is a sedimentary rock that has undergone
metaporphism. It consisted of three distinct layers."
Now for the complete story. In July 1992, we saw a video program
in which Carl Baugh of Glenrose, Texas, showed a fossilized human
footprint (removed from the Paluxy River bed). The fossilized
footprint had been cut into two sections, showing the inner
compression marks. When Ron saw the quality of the cut, he called
this man, whom we did not know, and asked him what facility
sectioned his specimen. We had been unable to find a someone we felt
comfortable enough with to allow them to cut a section off of the
deck timber. Carl Baugh wouldn't tell Ron where he had this done,
but he agreed to arrange to have our specimen sectioned if we
brought it to Glenrose.
So, on July 21, 1992, Ron, Richard Rives, Randy Osborn and I all
went to Texas. When we arrived, we found that no arrangements had
been made to cut our deck timber. Carl then told us he had a friend
who could cut it, but before we left to do this, he also said he
would be happy to have the specimen tested for us at a "certain
university" which did free testing for him. Since the specimen had
already been tested and we knew the results, we were more than happy
to allow him to do this. He then told us that the only stipulation
was that we couldn't tell anyone the name of this "university" or
else they would not continue to do free work for him. We all four
agreed to keep the "university's" name confidential.
We then went to his friend's garage and I have 2 hours of video
of them trying to cut the deck timber with every kind of saw
imaginable, but with no success. Finally, a small ragged section was
removed after going through 19 hacksaw blades. Carl agreed to send
the specimen to the certain "university", have it tested, and return
the specimen to us. When several months passed and nothing was heard
from him, Richard Rives called him. He told Richard that "they"
hadn't been able to determine what the specimen was and were now
doing what was called, "the extra-terrestrial analysis", which he
explained was a "test" performed on substances that couldn't be
identified with conventional analyses. He said it was the most
"thorough testing" a specimen could undergo.
More time passed. Richard called again and Carl said the tests
were STILL not complete. Then, 6 months after our trip to Texas, we
received a flimsy envelope in the mail. In it was a shattered glass
slide and 2 letters- one from Carl Baugh and another proposing to be
a "lab analysis". The slide with the thin-section of our specimen
was shattered since it had been mailed unprotected in a paper
envelope. The "analysis" was NOT from the "university" he had
claimed he was going to send it to, but INSTEAD was from
"Universal Petrographic, Geologic & Geochemical Consultants, Inc.,
48 Rockridge Drive, N.E., Albuquerque, New Mexico, 87122."
It was NOT addressed to Carl Baugh but to "Dr. M.D. Shockey,
7210-B Menaul Blvd., N.E., Albuquerque, New Mexico, 87110".
It did NOT state that ANY analysis had been done but that the
specimen had been given to them to be "thin sectioned".
Here is the entire "report"- "Dr. Shockey, Please be advised
that the rock which was GIVEN TO ME FOR THIN SECTIONING APPEARS
TO BE a meta-sediment. That is, a sedimentary rock that has
undergone metamorphism. It consisted of three distinct layers."
Signed, "Thomas Servilla, Director". Yet, in this
book, the report is claimed to state: "`This IS a
sedimentary rock that has undergone metaporphism.... There's
a BIG difference between "IS" and "APPEARS TO BE".
Our complete specimen has never been returned to us by Carl Baugh
and we have heard reports of Don Shockey and Carl Baugh appearing on
TV programs displaying a piece of "wood from Noah's Ark", which they
claim is laminated wood. Is this piece of "ark wood" the missing
section from our deck timber? And remember that these men are
actively involved in raising money to continue looking for Noah's
One last comment about this book- the next to the last photo in
the photo section is claimed to have been taken "In 1986"
"...Colonel James Irwin returned to Mount Ararat having
obtained a permit to fly a light plane around the mountain. A Dutch
National Television crew headed by Jan Van der Bosch went with
Colonel Irwin and shot a documentary. This amazing
photograph was taken of what Dutch National Television believes is a
portion of the ark protruding out of the icy snow."
This SAME PHOTOGRAPH is shown on p. 31 of John D. Morris' book,
"Noah's Ark and the Lost World", © 1988. But let's read what HE says
about the same photo:
"A friend of mine took this photo by holding his camera out
over the edge of a cliff. It was too dangerous for him to reach the
edge and look over, but he was able to take several pictures of the
hidden canyon below. When the film was developed and the pictures
examined, a strange object that looks like Noah's Ark could be seen,
just as these enlargements show...."
Friends, those who accept the "word" of ANYONE, regardless of
their "credentials", without seeing THOROUGH documentation WILL BE