DISCOVERY NEWS
“The Exciting World of Scientific,
Archeological, Biblical and Prophetic Discoveries”
www.DiscoveryNews.us
Questions & Answers on Noah's
Written by Mary Nell Wyatt
Last year, 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. Thus far, we have only given this rebuttal to a couple of people- those who asked for it -- and one of those "inquiring minds" was Andrew Jones.
We have spoken to Andrew on numerous occasions, and he is checking these things out as thoroughly as anyone we have met to date -- and he is, I believe (correct me if I'm wrong, Andrew) 16 or 17 years old. Anyhow, Andrew sent a copy of our rebuttal to David Fasold, who called us and asked if he could reproduce it in his newsletter. Of course, that was fine with us -- and so we felt that we should include an edited version in ours -- we are, however, unable to include the 20 pages of accompanying documentation, and have to limit it severely.
Reply to "Ex-Nihilo" Allegations by Mary Nell Wyatt
(Allegations are first listed, and then evidence is produced in rebuttal.)
1) CLAIM THAT THERE
RESPONSE- In the NATO surveys of this area of
When the photograph that showed the "boat-like" shape was noticed, Dr. Arthur Brandenberger, the world's leading authority on stereo planography, said: "I have no doubt at all that the object is a ship. In my entire career I have never seen an object like this in a stereo photo." (See Rene Noorbergen's book, "The Ark File".) Had there been any other formations even remotely similar in shape, these would have been detected in these surveys, which were very carefully examined.
Click here to see aerial photo
Careful examination of the photo presented in the article will show that it has been touched up. This has been verified by the person who did the touch-up work. But to further respond to this allegation of other similar boat-shapes in the area, part of the research done by Ron Wyatt and his associates was a careful examination of other areas which had a superficially similar appearance.
Between August 20 and 27 of 1985, Christian Broadcast Network did a series
of daily broadcasts on the work on the site. This was at the same time that
ABC's "2O/2O" did their filming. These broadcasts were initiated by
Dr. John Baumgardner, a geophysicist with Los Alamos National Laboratories in
"...Using a metal detector, Baumgardner has been able to confirm the existence of metal at regular intervals."
In a live interview on the same program, from
"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.
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) `hot spots' were indeed found, but these were randomly distributed and not in a regular pattern along lines."
RESPONSE- In the above referenced
"...Using a metal detector, Baumgardner has been able to confirm the existence of metal at regular intervals."
In the attached newspaper article, "Noah's
"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."
A video tape of the 1985-6 field expeditions of Ron, David Fasold and John Baumgardner can be obtained from David Fasold, showing John Baumgardner himself using the metal detector and proving the regularity of the "hot spots". Dave can be contacted by writing:
David Fasold
The tape referred to is of the 1985-6 field expeditions.
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
"The device is essentially a frequency generator (Ron's first was a HeathKit) that is linked with a frequency counter - this enables the user to set different frequencies for the different types of metal the user wishes to locate. The signal is then amplified and propagated electromagnetically through the ground.
When it hits the target metal, this excites its electron spin resonance, and this resonance causes an electromagnetic disturbance which propagates from the target metal back to the sender. The user receives this electromagnet wave back onto his body.
In this device, the human body is used as a living conductor or antenna in the same way your reception improves when you touch the rabbit ears or antenna contact on the back of your television. The receiver holds in his hands, two wands that attract to each other when the electromagnetic field of his body is disturbed in the proper direction.
The human body has two electromagnetic fields - one positive, one negative. In Ron's case, he used a battery and coils to increase this body field. In the "Filter King" device,...the wands are specially selected to be more responsive to the electromagnet disturbance....
This device was invented by H. G. Heranimus, who worked for the government and patented the molecular frequency concept 11 years ago. He has since died and now others are manufacturing his invention."
Also, the EX NIHILO article condemning this device gives no names of the scientists who supposedly built and tested these devices. This instrument is not "divining" but works on very solid scientific principles. Many scientists, archaeologists, engineers, etc. use them. 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.
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 secondhand 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 (below). This is positive proof that there were scans that these people have no idea about. And there were numerous scans, not just one.
5) CLAIM THAT GSSI DOES NOT BELIEVE THE OBJECT IS
"Fenner goes on to indicate that neither he nor GSSI believes the formation to be manmade."
RESPONSE- We have an article entitled, "Archaeologist certain he's
found the ark" dated
"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 its use on the Noah's
"GSSI systems have traveled to
Joe Rosetta also appeared on the
"This data is not, does not represent natural geology - it's a man-made structure. These reflections are occurring very periodic, too periodic to be random natural-type interfaces."
We do not ask nor expect GSSI, nor any other research facility, to conclude
that the evidence proves it to be Noah's
When Joe Rosetta viewed the data, he was shown the video of the scan in progress on the site. So he, as well as Tom Fenner, not only saw the results of the scans, but also the work in progress with the scan results being printed as the scan took place. When Ron went to GSSI, he videotaped the entire process of their interpreting the scan results, and we have that video in our possession.
6) CLAIM THAT THE
RESPONSE- In our forthcoming video, will 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 presence of organic carbon is proven by subtracting the total of inorganic carbon from the total carbon. The result is the amount of organic carbon.
This test, which is only one of the numerous testing done on this deck timber, shows that there was .7019% organic carbon in the timber. The presence of any organic carbon proves the object was not a rock, but does contain once-living matter (.7100% total carbon less .0081% inorganic carbon = .7019% organic carbon).
The timber was taken to Teledyne-Allvac labs where it was examined by electron microscope in 1992. I personally videotaped 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.
7) CLAIM THAT RON "MADE UP" STORY THAT THE TURKS FOUND ARTIFACTS
ON THE
"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.
8) CLAIM THAT RON "PLANTED" ARTIFACTS ON THE
"...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
He told us that two 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
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.
Click here to see photo of 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.
9) CLAIM THAT THE RIVET IS
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 videotaped 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.
10) CLAIM THAT THE ANCHOR STONES WERE ACTUALLY MADE BY ARMENIANS:
"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.
The article produces no photos showing any signs of "earlier defacement". We have hundreds of closeup photos and video of all of these anchor stones, and none of them show any sign of earlier defacement.
We also have video where, in 1988, we applied ultraviolet paint to these
stones in order to be able to photograph cracks in the stones which would not
be visible to the naked eye. We contacted Kodak in
Now, I personally applied the liquid during the daylight. We returned to the sites in the dead of night where we examined these, photographed them and videotaped them. There is positively no evidence for any earlier defacement on any of these stones that any of us have seen.
We will release a photocopy of a photograph of one of the anchor stones Ron found which is still partially buried in the earth and is just now becoming visible (see color photo page.) Apparently it was buried in the mud when it was dropped. Only now is the earth eroding away from it enough for it to become visible. We have 3 of these documented and none of them have crosses carved on them, yet they all had the hole at the top (one is broken off). This disproves the old theory that the Armenians made them and carved the inscriptions on them at the time they made them.
So far, neither we nor the Turkish scientists have not been able to find any
record of anything like these inscribed anchor stones anywhere else. And the
Turks ought to know! The crosses carved on them are of two styles- Byzantine
and Crusader. This shows that these people identified the stones with holes in
them with eight people. The upright stone in the
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.
11) CLAIM THAT THE BALLAST IS
"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
As to the claim by John Morris that these are simply manganese nodules, like
those found on the floor of the
But the most significant evidence is the size- our sample is 7" by 10" with a depth of about 2 1/2 to 3". Those manganese nodules found on the sea floor average "slightly less than 2 inches in diameter."
12) CLAIM THAT TURKEY DOES NOT RECOGNIZE THE
RESPONSE- Attached (right) you will find a copy of the Turkish newspaper
article in the "Hurriyet", the largest Turkish newspaper, dated
Also, Turkish tourism literature, which we picked up in
As to the highway, at the dedication ceremony on
However, because of the extreme attacks by the
A newspaper article about the Turks' acceptance of the site as Noah's
13) CLAIM THAT LATER
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
"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
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."
Prior to this article, we received a lot of phone calls from people in
Several people who once believed so strongly that this was Noah's
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.
© 2006 Anchor Stone International
