Noahs Ark, and the flood confirmed!
Revelation 11:3 2009/12/22 06:55:37
QUESTIONS I AM MOST FREQUENTLY ASKED ABOUT NOAH'S ARK
1) The "object" you claim is the remains of Noah's Ark is about 515 feet long and 138 feet wide. The Bible says the Ark was 300 cubits long and 50 cubits wide. I always believed that would mean the Ark would have been 450 feet long by 75 feet wide. How do you explain this discrepancy with the Bible?
Answer: This is one of the most exciting confirmations of the authenticity of the object being the Ark, in my estimation! The Bible tells us how Noah's offspring eventually migrated to what became Babylon, then at the confusion of languages, Ham's descendants migrated to what became Egypt. The Encyclopedia Britannica (1985 edition) states:
"although there is evidence that many early civilizations devised standards of measurements and some tools for measuring, the Egyptian cubit is generally recognized as having been the most ubiquitous standard of linear measurement in the very ancient world."
The royal Egyptian cubit was 20.62 inches. Now, if we consider the Biblical statement that Moses was "learned in all the wisdom of Egypt" - Acts 7:22, as the author of Genesis, he would have been referring to the only cubit he knew. 300 cubits = 515.5 feet. 50 cubits = 85.9 feet. The measurement of the length of the boat, taken in August, 1985 by Maylon Wilson and Baumgardner of Los Alamos Laboratory with sophisticated measurement devices, showed the inside length of the boat to be 515.7 feet! David Fasold's measurement of the same was exactly 515 feet!
The width of 138 feet, (my measurement and also David's) may at first seem to present a problem until we consider it carefully. The boat is splayed. The height given in the Bible is 30 cubits or 51.55 feet.
The width is given as 50 cubits or 85.916 feet. The total of both sides plus the width is 189.016 feet -far too wide. But if the hull of the ship was exactly half the entire height of the boat, and the hull splayed outward, the width would be 137.466 feet! Our later metal detection results confirmed these figures as well as the sub-surface interface radar scans.
2) I understand that other creationists have stated that what you claim to be petrified wood extending from the formation cannot possibly be wood. Isn't it a simple matter to prove something is petrified wood?
Answer: Yes it is, normally. Let me refer you to the section on "The Geology of the Earth" for an explanation on the petrification process. However, part of the identification of a petrified object is visual. If it looks like a shell, chances are it's a shell. If it looks like wood, then it's wood. But there's a problem with this wood - it looks like wood except for one thing; it has no growth rings. Now, if we truly believe the Biblical description of the earth before the flood, we know that there couldn't possibly be any growth rings in pre-flood wood4. In "The New Larousse Encyclopedia of the Earth", page 369, we read:
"To support trunks of six-foot base diameter and 60-to 100- foot height, tissues must have increased in thickness from year to year. There was, as we have already said, secondary- bark and wood, similar to that of modern trees but lacking the spring and winter rings which correspond to seasonal alternation of moisture and dryness."
This is in reference to ancient sigillarias found without any growth rings. But isn't it a pity that I had to go to a book that refers to the earth's age in "millions of years" to find a reference corroborating the fact that these fossils have been found without growth rings? If growth rings were in the wood of the Ark, it would be a fake or replica.
3) What about laboratory testing of samples from the Ark; have you had this done?
Answer: Yes, I obtained samples from the boat itself and from the land around the Ark. I had several of these samples tested at Galbraith Labs in Knoxville, Tennessee. Just like medical tests, these results have to be read and interpreted by people trained to do so, so I will quote William Shea, M.D. PhD., Professor of Archaeology and History of Antiquity, in his report to the Turkish government dated February 20, 1987:
"The formation was struck by an earthquake in December of 1978. As a result it was cracked lengthwise and partially split open. This opening made it possible for Wyatt to obtain relatively fresh internal soil samples from it when he returned to the site in September of 1979. In a test run on this sample, along with another sample taken from the field outside of the formation, the organic carbon content was measured. The soil from the formation tested at 4.95% while the soil from the field around the formation tested at 1.88%. This degree of difference is consistent with the prior presence of some organic matter (like wood) in the formation."
Since then, I have had numerous other specimens tested with similar results, which I will publish at a later date. Also, these tests revealed extremely high metallic contents, which caused me to wonder if there might not be metal in the Ark itself. This led to the future metal detection testing which revealed the fantastic structure of a massive boat.
4) Explain the metal detection tests and how it could prove any internal structure. Couldn't it just be trace metal in the soil?
Answer: No. On the Ark, the metal detecting equipment gave positive readings on its calibrated dial and by sound at numerous points all over the boat. We were able to determine that there was significant amounts of metal present and that it appeared to be in a pattern. The testing of the surrounding area was completely negative. In May of 1985, John Baumgardner and David Fasold, a marine salvor from Florida, accompanied me to the site, and with the metal detectors and David's new type of metal detector, a molecular frequency generator, we mapped out the metal readings with plastic tapes. It revealed a distinct linear subsurface pattern. We repeated this again in August of 1985, with John Baumgardner and myself accompanied this time by Maylon Wilson, also of Los Alamos Laboratories, and Tom Anderson, a lawyer from Indio, California, who filmed the entire event. We videoed the tests ourselves on both occasions and photographed it thoroughly.
On the outer wall of the boat, striations appear which are keenly visible along the east side of the upper portion and the west side of the lower portion. On the striations, the metal readings were positive while the spaces between were totally negative.
5) What about the radar scans you mention? What exactly is sub-surface interface radar, and what did the use of it prove?
Answer: Without getting highly technical, this type of radar works by the generation of an electromagnetic pulse which is radiated into the earth from a broad band width antenna. This pulse can be focused to a particular depth where it is then reflected back and recorded on a graphic recorder similar to an EKG. Quite a sophisticated device, it requires training to operate and to read the results accurately. I received thorough training at Geophysical Survey Systems, Inc. in Hudson, New Hampshire. The first scan took place in July of 1986. On this expedition were myself, Baumgardner and Anderson from the August, 1985 expedition, as well as Mrs. Baumgardner, Dr. William Shea of Andrews University and two cameramen, Todd Fisher and Scott Snider, from Los Angeles. This radar scan confirmed, with astounding detail, the same pattern demonstrated by the metal detectors. Where it was remotely possible to have incorrectly connected the lines resulting from the metal detectors, the radar scan showed what can only be identified as a keel, keelsons and bulkheads from a boat of tremendous size.
6) What do the scientists and other experts you have taken to the "boat" say; do they believe it is the Ark?
Answer: One who is totally convinced is David Fasold. David has written a book entitled "The Ark of Noah" which details much of our research, and while we disagree on some matters I don't feel are significant or cause for doubt as to the identity of the boat, I highly recommend it. He is meticulously thorough in his research and recording of the data. I must give David a great deal of credit in the research and wish to add he was the most enjoyable person I have ever worked with. He knew the first time he laid eyes on it that it was a boat. And he's an expert in shipwrecks.
Dr. William Shea has worked with me on this from the very beginning. He is a professional in the field of archaeology and ancient history and most open-minded to facts. While I have not a statement from him recently, I will quote from an article he wrote for "Archaeology and Biblical Research", Winter, 1988, entitled "Noah's Ark?" on page 14:
"... The last half of the list point to the general conclusion that the remains of a ship appear to be present in this formation. The first half are of a more specific nature that would connect the remains of such a ship with the Ark of Noah described in Genesis. The progressive convergence of these various lines of evidence seem to confirm the conclusion that some of the remains of Noah's Ark lie within this unusual formation."
Dr. John Baumgardner appears to have changed his mind about what he believes. So as to avoid misquoting him I will quote from David's book, "The Ark of Noah":
"John didn't hear the remark. I think he was off someplace in Tubal-cain's foundry five thousand years ago. He held in his hand a piece of wrought iron. The grain of the stretched and hammered angle bracket still clearly visible.
It was complete pandemonium after that. Once John knew what to look for, fittings were all over the place. He could walk down the top of the wall with the detector going beep,...beep every two or three steps. Now it was the trained eye of a scientist, looking for things out of place in the natural covering of the mud, followed by his 'Look at this!' growing in excitement. I kept the video going as I ran around, stumbling behind him, then moved to the mound to record his discoveries from a distance to give perspective to the viewer. No sooner had I left him when he suddenly yelled, 'Undecomposed iron!'
I ran down the mound again and crouched to my knees. I zoomed in on the mud wall. There, surrounded by the brown matrix of mud, was a perfectly rectangular beam end of a bluish-gray agglomeration of small rough stones. The upper and lower right corners were absolutely square, and projecting from within were what appeared to be iron flakes which had given the signals."
The results of the analysis on that metal bracket are recorded also in David's book:
"I hurriedly opened the first-class envelope labeled 'Los Alamos National Laboratory.' It contained the semiquantitative analysis of the iron samples we had recovered from the Ark. The stoichiometric results were impressive, with the seven running from 60 percent through 91.84 percent FE203. The highest reading was obtained from an angular bracket."
Later we read of a news broadcast which David meticulously recorded:
"Soon there followed daily broadcasts: '... has this report on what the scientists have found so far... could this be the final resting place of Noah's Ark? ... Dr. John Baumgardner, a geophysicist at the Los AIamos Research Lab in New Mexico... using a metal detector, Baumgardner has been able to confirm the existence of metal at regular intervals. Baumgardner says he believes that metal is at the points where these lines intersect, giving rise to speculation metal was used in the infrastructure of the craft.'"
Finally, when our local newspaper here in Nashville did a story on the Ark on August 16, 1989, I gave them his name and told them to call him. From "The Tennessean":
"A former Wyatt colleague, geophysicist John Baumgardner of the Los Alamos National Laboratory in Los Alamos, N.M. said the intriguing hieroglyphics and high levels of iron oxides found there are 'very encouraging', but the evidence is still too meager to make any conclusions."
"The amazingly symmetrical shape of the site can be explained by the flow of mudslides in the area over time."
But my favorite "critic" of not only the site but myself, was also contacted at my request and quoted in the same article:
"'As much as I want to believe it, I have to say the formation is rock from top to bottom, and anyone knowledgeable who steps onto it knows that,' said John Morris, head of the Creation Science Institute in San Diego.
'The main problem with Wyatt is he's too free with his conclusions and hasn't submitted his data to independent researchers. He's not a geologist.'"
7) I don't see how these anchor stones prove it's the Ark. If they are several miles from the site you claim is the Ark, how does that prove anything?
Answer: The anchor stones have tremendous significance in more ways than one. First of all, they are by far the largest anchor stones ever found in the history of the world. The leading authority on anchor stones is considered to be Honor Frost, who in 1973 published, "Ancore, the Potsherd of Marine Archaeology: On the Recording of Pierced Stones from the Mediterranean". Based on her thorough research, we learn that 700 kgs., or 1,543 lbs. is one of the heaviest, if not the heaviest, anchor stone ever found. That is until these. One of the largest I've found is almost 11 feet tall, but the average height is 10 feet by a 5 foot width. David Fasold, in his book, estimates the average weight of these anchor stones to be 8,700 lbs.
To date, there are 13 of these that I have seen. There are several more that I believe to be anchors, but they are partially buried in an upright position and exhibit some of the same characteristics as those we are sure of. Eight of them have the inscriptions which make it evident that some people at some point in time made a direct connection between these and Noah and the Ark. However, some people suggest that whoever carved the crosses probably carved the anchor stones. I know this is definitely not the case, as when I was at the site in April, I found two more anchor stones which were buried and just barely surfacing for obviously the first time and these did not have any crosses or any other carvings on them!
As for the placement of these anchor stones, it becomes quite evident that as the Ark drifted between two submerged peaks in a ridge of small mountains, the first two anchors snagged and tethered the boat until Noah removed the covering and saw the tops of the mountains. We found a large piece of petrified bark in the same vicinity which I believe to be a portion of that covering. He then cut them loose, leaving them on the two peaks, a short distance apart. As the boat made a direct line through these mountains toward its final resting place, seven more anchors, and probably more, were cut loose and landed near, if not exactly, where they are at present. The village where five of these are located is in a direct line with the twin peaks of the ridge where the first two dropped. The two that are buried are also in this direct line, and finally about eight miles further, about 1/4 mile below the boat, lies the 10th one.
These anchor stones are far too large to be carried by men. It has been suggested that they aren't anchors at all and that the holes are the means by which they were dragged to their present locations. This is impossible, as the location and size of the holes are such that out of water they would break right off under the tremendous stress. Only in the buoyancy of the water could they be held by ropes. Of interest also is the fact that the holes have a larger inner diameter than outer; when the ropes were secured through the holes, knots were tied inside the "scooped-out" hole, and as the water swelled the knotted rope, it was prevented from rubbing and eventually wearing the rope in two from the friction.
8) If the Turkish government has really agreed with your finding and declared that this is really the Ark, why hasn't the whole world heard about it? Why are the other ark searches still going on?
Answer: As you read at the beginning of this book, they announced it in their own newspapers. But before they publicized a fact such as this on a worldwide scale, they built a visitor's center and are still working on what is at least a six- and possibly eight-lane highway which leads to the site. This is a remote area. There isn't any quick and easy way to get there from Erzurum; you have to go by "taksi" or bus for at least a good four to five hours. While there are a few hotels in the area, there are certainly not enough for a sudden and tremendous influx of tourists. The Turkish government will make the announcement as soon as they are ready. The biggest problem they are facing at the present is the theft of great archaeological treasures from this area. I mentioned the theft of Noah's wife's grave; I was contacted directly to see if I had any knowledge of who could have done such a thing and was told that one piece of jewelry had sold on the black-market in Istanbul for $75,000,000.00! Of course, it had to be quite an incredible piece, and the description of it alone was more than a person could comprehend. The locals have discovered that tourists will buy anything with a cross inscribed on it, so they are breaking some of the artifacts up and selling them.
Then, they must consider the Ark itself. At present, there is no protection for it. People could begin breaking off pieces for souvenirs and destroy it very quickly in the delicate condition it is presently in. They do have a caretaker who has wild dogs guarding it now, but it could be a potentially destructive situation to encourage too much tourism at present. On my last visit in August of this year, I noticed they had even taken down the "Nuh'un Gemisi" sign which greeted visitors at the foot of the road leading to it. However, on the Sunday after Thanksgiving, 1988, Connie Chung mentioned on her brief "news break" that the Turkish government was going to make the announcement "sometime next year," meaning 1989, I presumed.
4 See the last paragraph under "The Flood" in Chapter 11 on growth rings and pre-flood geology. See also Gen. 2:6.
Wyatt Archaeological Research Home
See Votes by State
News & Politics
Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions