ARARAT REPORT #32, May 1993.
(Note, we are sorry that the photographs mentioned in this issue
are not available for this online version.)
FIGMENT OR FACT?
THE INCREDIBLE DISCOVERY OF NOAH'S ARK
World Premier Showing: CBS Network February 20, 1993.
Produced by Sun International Pictures. 1993.
Executive Producer: Charles Sellier, Jr.
Chief Researcher: Dave Balsiger
Host: Darren McGavin
Any movie on the subject of Noah's Ark is of interest to
ARARAT REPORT. CBS obviously thought the subject would interest
the viewing public, since they purchased the right to air this
show on prime time television. For producer Charles Sellier,
this was not his first try. In the mid-70's he produced "IN
SEARCH OF NOAH'S ARK," seen occasionally on late-night TV, and
still available in video stores. The current movie is an update
of the earlier version with perhaps as much as 20% of the former
incorporated in the new. After much anticipation, my response to
this film was one of profound disappointment. The reason is best
illustrated by the following summarized response I heard from
many Christians who viewed it: "Wow! Wasn't that an exciting
show! They've finally found Noah's Ark!" I absolutely hated to
tell them: "No, that's still premature; the discovery of Noah's
Ark has not yet been authenticated." My most general reaction is
that the intent of the movie seemed to be to deliberately
mislead. Why else would you have a title that proclaims "THE
INCREDIBLE DISCOVERY OF NOAH'S ARK?" Why would the producers and
the network want to do this? What was their objective? This was
the question that nagged as we viewed and reviewed the film.
At the outset, the narrator plainly informs the viewers that the
subject of Noah's Ark should be seen primarily as an
archaeological, as opposed to a religious quest. I take this
statement to mean that whereas religion is often seen as
equivocal, mystical and personal, archaeology is a discipline of
the sciences where evidence is viewed with honest skepticism and
submitted to rigorous scientific examination. What follows is a
format of expert testimony, interspersed with dramatization
concluding with eyewitness accounts and photographic evidence.
THE EXPERT TESTIMONY
The expert testimony initially centers around the possibility of
a story such as Noah's Ark being historically true. Could Noah
have really gotten all those animals in the Ark? Could the whole
world have been submerged by a deluge such as described in the
Bible? Most evangelical Christians will recognize the testimony
of leading creationists such as Drs. John Whitcomb and Henry
Morris. Others were more obscure, but most were indicated as
being "professor" of a certain area of expertise, and most had
the title of "Dr.". A professor is generally someone who teaches
or does research in an institution of higher learning such as a
college or university. The title "Dr." means a person has met
all the requirements for a degree that entails years of study and
research. It means that a person meeting the standards should
have the qualifications to render a scholarly opinion. Now if
the purpose of this show is scientific, and not religious as the
narrator stated, we should expect the expert testimony to be
those of some reputation and achievement in the proper fields of
expertise. Many of those testifying do, but we noticed a
disturbing propensity to pad the program. For example, one
expert testifying about the materials used in the Ark's
construction was listed as "Dr." and "professor of anthropology".
In actuality, he is not a professor, but an optometrist. Another
is listed as a publisher and archaeologist. Indeed he is a
publisher in his field of expertise, which happens to be
commodities trading. At least three other experts were portrayed
as PhD's when such was not the case.
Aren't we being a little too nit-picky? We don't think so. If
the above examples were the only flaws in the film we probably
would not have even mentioned them. Unfortunately, this
documentary, which up front says it's only concern is with the
scientific evidence, is filled with the above, and other examples
of reckless and careless distortions of fact. If the credentials
of experts giving testimony are "glorified", one wonders what
else might be suspect? Here are some of the glaring ones:
I. THE ANCIENT TESTIMONY: WERE THEY EYEWITNESSES OF AN ARK ON
ARARAT?
As editor of AR we are intrigued by the ancient testimony of the
Ark's continued existence long after the Flood. From our
previous reports we noted that there is reference to the Ark's
existence as early as the 3rd Century B.C. and as late as the
12th Century A.D.1 The movie misconstrues this evidence in two
ways: (1)They have experts (Vilet and Davis) testify that the
ancient witnesses personally saw the Ark, and, (2) that they saw
it on present-day Mt. Ararat. Those cited are: Berossus, a
Chaldean priest in 275 B.C. (they give the date as 475 B.C., a
200 year mistake!), Epiphanius in 360 A.D., and Haithon in 1254.
First, if one consults these witnesses, you will notice that none
say they were eyewitnesses. In fact, the clearest interpretation
is that they are merely reporting that remains of the Ark still
exist. Secondly, in neither Berossus nor Epiphanius, is there a
clear indication that the present-day Mt. Ararat is in view.
Both report that remains of the Ark are on a mountain in the
Gordian mountains (Kurdish mountains). Epiphanius gives the
name of the mountain as Mt Lubar, a name he no doubt learned from
the pseudopigraphical book, "JUBILEES". Haithon, the Armenian
King in 1254, does refer to Mt Ararat as the resting place of
Noah's Ark. This is what he actually says: "In Armenia there is
a very high mountain--the highest in existence--and its name is
Ararat. On that mountain Noah's Ark landed after the flood. No
one can climb this mountain because of the great quantity of snow
on it winter and summer. But at the summit a great black object
is always visible, which is said to be (emphasis ours) the Ark of
Noah." We leave the door open. Haithon may have seen "the spot"
with his own eyes. The people currently living at the foot of
Ararat still refer to this spot as "the eye of the bird"! In
recent times it has been examined up close by helicopter, and on
the ground by the intrepid John McIntosh, and the Swedish
climber, Gunnar Smars.2
Other ancient witnesses cited by the panel of experts are
Hieronymous the Egyptian (30 B.C.), Nicholas of Damascus (1st
Century B.C.), and Marco Polo (13th Century). We are not exactly
sure of the exact statements of Heieronymous and Nicholas since
their works have not survived. Josephus cites them (among
others) as claiming that remains of the Ark are extent. The
important thing to note is that none designate Ararat as the
mountain of the Ark! Nicholas calls the mountain "Baris", and a
mountain of that name is not mentioned in any other known
literature.
Marco Polo undoubtedly passed by Ararat on his journey eastward
to China. While in the company of its residents he was informed
that the Ark was still resting on the summit of the mountain.
The movie does get this right! It is our belief, by this time in
the 13th century, the tradition that Ararat was the landing place
of the Ark had obviously developed.
II. NAVARRA: IS HE CREDIBLE?
Ferdinand Navarra, a French junk-dealer, made his first trip to
Ararat in 1952 with five other climbers. During this initial
trip Navarra claimed to have seen a huge black spot under the ice
near the summit of the mountain. He tried to return to the spot
in 1953, but was unsuccessful. In 1955, he returned with his son
Raphael, and claimed to find large amounts of wood in the
crevasse of a glacier. This announcement created a sensation
among the Christian community as the "discovery" of wood was
announced in the world press (NEW YORK TIMES). THE INCREDIBLE
DISCOVERY includes actual footage taken by Navarra himself
showing how they extracted a large beam from the snow. The movie
goes on to state that the wood was tested in three different labs
all giving the same ancient date of 3000 B.C. What the movie
does not tell you is that the methods used are highly subjective
and of little scientific value. These methods involve testing
the degree of lignitization, density change, and color. On the
other hand, five very reputable labs have tested Navarra's wood
using the carbon 14 method of dating. While we have some
reservations about the assumptions that go into this method, the
results of all five tests put the wood somewhere around the 8th
Century A.D.. This is interesting in the light of the testimony
of the French press which interviewed one of Navarra's team
members of the first expedition who was adamant that Navarra's
wood was a hoax. He claims Navarra was seen purchasing ancient
wood from the natives.3
We have other reasons for doubting the credibility of Navarra.
In 1969 he pointed out three different sites for his supposed
discovery, two to the Search Foundation, and another in
correspondence with Eryl Cummings. He designated a fourth site
if you count the first one on the summit where he saw the dark
mass in the ice. What else is known is that Navarra's business
was on the rocks and he wanted huge sums of money from American
Ark hunters to point out the location of his wood discovery. As
late as 1984, Navarra still maintained his story. His son,
however, has refused to talk to anyone since the discovery.4
III. MODERN EYEWITNESSES: ARE THEY RELIABLE?
The most spectacular part of the film has to be the testimony of
witnesses who claimed to have seen Noah's Ark intact. Navarra,
of course only saw a mass of wood and not a structure.
A. George Hagopian
The first modern eyewitness, and for us, the most interesting, is
the account of George (Kevork) Hagopian. The incident occurred
at the turn of the century while Hagopian was a small boy about
8-11 years. He was a native of Van, an important Armenian city
at the time. According to his story, he was herding sheep with
his uncle on Masis (The Armenian name for Ararat) when he was
taken to the Holy Relic. Following the Armenian Holocaust,
Hagopian, an orphan, immigrated to the U.S. He first told his
story to Ark researchers in 1970, when he was approximately 80
years old. His health was feeble at the time and he died shortly
thereafter, in 1972. Though Hagopian was interviewed by a number
of Ark researchers, it was Elfred Lee who spent hours with him
probing his memory. Many hours of testimony were recorded and
are still in Lee's possession.5
In the movie, Hagopian's story is dramatized. We won't retell
the story here since it is the most familiar of all the
eyewitness accounts. It is significant only to make a few
observations: (1) Hagopian's story is difficult to falsify. As
he told and retold his story he never deviated from his original
account. The fact that he is no longer with us makes it
difficult to render any kind of judgement. (2) His knowledge of
the Ararat area as he describes it is accurate and detailed.
Other aspects of his story given to researchers seem to
substantiate his credibility. For instance, he claimed that at
the time he was taken to the Ark the region had experienced
several consecutive years of drought. Weather records are
something that can be checked, so in 1987, we commissioned Allen
Roy to tap the databases for weather information at the time
Hagopian claimed he saw the Ark. What he found was astounding!
For four straight years (1901-1904) the temperature and
precipitation were so abnormal they were off the charts.6 (3)
Hagopian was not very helpful with regard to location. He seems
to indicate that he and his uncle climbed from the east side of
the mountain starting at Bayazit (modern Dougabayazit), but this
is not certain. He also insisted that the Ark was to be found
almost at the very summit of the mountain and not at the 14,000
foot level as Navarra had been claiming. (4) The most
fascinating part of his story was the description of the Ark
itself, wholly petrified with green moss growing on the top. He
depicted it as barge-like with no visible doors or windows, and
totally intact sitting on a huge ledge over-looking a deep drop
off. Hagopian says he saw the Ark on one other occasion, but
more from a distance. At this time he says the Ark was nearly
covered with snow. He also says that he later discovered that
other Armenian boys had seen the Ark. This point interested me.
In 1985, I traveled to Wash. D.C. for the 70th Commemoration of
the Armenian Holocaust. While there, I chatted with an elderly
Armenian survivor in his 80's. He related that as an orphan he
roamed the streets of Yerevan and often listened to the stories
of the older boys. Once he recalled some telling about visiting
the Ark on Masis!
Do I have any problems with the Hagopian story? Some, but they
are not enough to dismiss the story. The story itself is
interesting, but it still provides no empirical evidence, and
even if credible, is not helpful in the critical subject of
location. Some things that trouble me are the fact that the
testimony itself is secondhand. From experience, I am skeptical
of the way testimony has been elicited from alleged witnesses by
Ark researchers in the past. When one wants to believe a story,
as Ark researchers desperately want to do, it is often difficult
to maintain the proper neutrality. Often words are put into
their mouths. Negative, or contradictory facts are simply
ignored. I am also troubled by the great length of time from
Hagopian's boyhood till the time of his testimony (70 years).
The years can really dim the details. But on the other hand,
some elderly people have vivid memories of their early years.
Another matter hard to dismiss is Hagopian's social situation.
He was apparently a lonely man with no relatives and few friends.
With this condition it is easy for someone needing to feel
important to embellish their past! Ask any psychiatrist.
Some researchers are troubled by Hagopian's description of the
size of the Ark. He says it was 1000 feet long and 600 feet
wide. This is at odds with the Biblical dimensions (450 by 70
approx.). However, you have to remember that Hagopian probably
saw things in terms of meters, and to a small boy it must have
looked huge. I'm personally not bothered by this. The George
Hagopian story remains an interesting, but unverifiable story.
B. Ed Davis
Ed Davis, a resident of Albuquerque, NM, claims he was shown the
Ark during World War II. AR has reviewed his story in two
previous issues. For this review we will only summarize some of
our conclusions.7
In the movie, much is made of the fact that Davis underwent a
long grueling polygraph examination that he passed without
question. The fact is he was asked a grand total of six
questions! And what they did not tell you is that the test
indicated unusual stress on one of the crucial questions. That
question was: "Are you lying when you state that no one ever told
you about the Ark other than Abbas and the Bible? He answered
no, and when confronted that stress was indicated, he confessed
that he had talked to others. With at least four books and two
feature-length movies being circulated in the media since the
70s, one has to admit that this is an important question.
In our previous reviews of the Davis case we concluded that Davis
did indeed have an experience. We have no reason to doubt what
he wrote in his Bible concerning the day he took the trip.8
However, we do not think he was ever on Mt. Ararat in Turkey.
In his original story, which we have on video tape, Davis informs
his visitors that while stationed in Hamadan, Iran, he noticed a
distant, snow-capped mountain one day. When he asked about it he
says he was told that the mountain was the mountain of the Ark.
Knowing something about the Bible, he replied that he would like
to go there and see it. His new friends promised that someday
they would take him. In the original story he says his friends
were Lourds.9 Later after being debriefed by Ark researchers he
changed his story significantly. Lourds do not live at the foot
of Ararat but the Kurds do. Hence, thereafter, he refers to
those who took him to the Ark as Kurds! We do not believe that
Davis is a credible eyewitness for the following reasons:
(1) Davis claims he saw the snow-covered peak of Ararat from
Hamadan. This is impossible since Ararat is 400 miles away
as the crow flies.
(2) When Abbas decided to take Davis to the Ark Davis claims
they drove there in a little over half a day. This is
another impossibility. It would be difficult even with a
modern highway.
(3) In the original tape, Davis describes Ararat as a mountain
having springs and caves. These features are rare on
Ararat.
(4) The details of what the natives found in the Ark as related
to Davis strain credulity. Edible food was found after
5000 years! They found jars still containing honey,
feathers in cages, fish remains, and edible beans.
(5) The Davis story has undergone numerous changes as he has
been interviewed repeatedly by Ark researchers. When shown
close-up photos of Ararat in 1985, he pointed to the rock
chimney area as the area where he was taken. This is the
area near the Chehenem Dere and is totally inaccessible.
After helicopters hovered over this area in 1988, Al Jenny
claimed: "There in not room in there to accommodate my
house!" After the Ali Arslan photos indicated a mysterious
object in the Abich II glacier, Ark researchers again
questioned Davis and he then admitted this must have been
the area he was taken to. Assume the latter is true for a
moment. Someone explain to me how Abbas and Davis got into
this area? It too, is inaccessible. The only humans who
get into this area are those who fall there to their death!
(6) To believe the Davis story you must give credence to the
conspiracy theory that says that some local natives know
right were the Ark rests but zealously guard the secret of
its location and deliberately mislead searchers and
inquirers (especially Christians) unless you gain their
confidence in some way as Davis claims he did. In the
light of the searching that has been allowed recently with
helicopters, planes, and on the ground, this idea no longer
seems credible. Ed even embellishes the conspiracy theory!
He claims he has received numerous threatening calls from
Islamic groups since he told his story. One such group was
"The Black Arm of Muhammed"!
So what do we think about Ed Davis? Our hypothesis is as
follows: In 1943, while stationed in Hamadan, Iran, some natives
took Ed to a snow-capped mountain about 60 miles west of Hamadan.
This mountain is known as "Kuh e Alvand" and to many in that area
of the world this mountain is the one on which the Ark landed.
It is a mountain of many archaeological sites, springs and caves
just as Davis described it. With the roads the way they were
then it would have taken them about half a day to get there.
While there, they must have pointed out some object, probably a
huge block of basalt partly covered with snow and informed him
that it was Noah's Ark (they too, believed it was). The story
became embellished as Davis sensed the importance of the
experience to Ark researchers and because of the personal
attention he received.
Here again we have an alleged eyewitness who has no empirical
evidence and has been of no help in locating the ship. One also
wonders, Ed Davis did have a camera and he returned from the war
with many photos of Iran. If he were at Ararat in Turkey why
wouldn't he at least have a panoramic shot of one of the most
beautiful mountains in the world? (Even if you subscribe to the
conspiracy theory?) (Note, Ed Davis also claims he was shown the
site of the Garden of Eden!)
C. Ed Behling
The Ed Behling story surfaced in the mid to late 70's after four
major books about the search for Noah's Ark were published.
Behling claims he was shown the Ark while in Turkey on a tour of
duty in the Air Force. He was taken there by a native Turk he
had befriended. This story received fairly wide publicity when
he was interviewed on Christian radio and TV programs originating
in Oklahoma.
I was frankly surprised that Behling's account was included in
the documentary.10 Since the early eighties, he has not wanted
to talk about his experience. He talked with us only reluctantly
when we called his home in 1985. He took great offense when
asked about certain questionable aspects of his testimony. For
instance, he says they built a campfire just below the Ark and
then spent the night there. When I questioned him about the
nature of the campfire there was silence and reluctance to
continue the interview. Any mountain climber knows that to build
a campfire above 13,000 feet requires some pretty good fuel!
Many hours were spent examining this testimony and this man's
character. The people we interviewed who knew Behling, spoke of
him as a sincere Christian but one who embellishes for effect.
We think this is a story that grew out of hand each time it was
told. I have two great problems with the Ed Behling story: (1)
Again, as with the Davis story, you have to give credence to the
conspiracy theory. (2) If he really saw the Ark his behavior is
difficult to explain. If I had seen the Ark I would not have
lost contact with the people who revealed it to me, nor would I
cease trying to go back for a second look. Would I be quiet
about it? No way.
D. George Jammal
The final eyewitness in the film was George Jammal, a Palestinian
immigrant from Israel, now living in Long Beach, CA. He moved to
the area, he says, because of his dream to become an actor.
Jammal claims to have made three trips to Ararat in search of
Noah's Ark because he wanted to prove that the Bible was true.
His first trip in 1972 was unsuccessful. He returned in 1980 and
again in 1984. In this final year he teamed up with a Polish Ark
researcher, named Vladimir Sobitchsky. On this trip they
discovered a small cave. Upon entering the cave they found it
was not a cave, but rather when they got inside, they found
stalls and cages. Later, outside the entrance, while taking
final photographs, Vladimir fell to his death, alas, with both
cameras! It was this last expedition that was dramatized for the
film. Later during the interview, Jammal shows a piece of wood
he claims he broke off from the Ark.
We never reported on the Jammal testimony in AR though we had
heard his story in 1986. The reason, at the time, was we never
felt the story had any credibility. After seeing the interview
in this documentary, and reviewing several hours of taped
interview, we are convinced of the correctness of our earlier
decision. Of the four eyewitnesses, this seems the least
plausible. There is precious little in the story to examine. In
the initial interview in 1986, he is extremely confused when
confronted about the geography of the mountain. He first claims
to have started his ascent from Nakhichevan (60 miles away!).
When told that this city was in the Soviet Union, he says, "I was
told this..." In fact, whenever he was confronted with
contradictions he would defer to: "I was told this..." He
eventually says he went to Lake Kop and that it took him two
weeks to get there! I would have liked to have seen the size of
his backpack! Usually Lake Kop can be reached with a good day of
walking starting from the west side.
When his first trip was unsuccessful, he says he found a man in
Igdir named Asholian. An Armenian? Living in Igdir in 1980?
Highly unlikely. In 1984 he returned to team up with the Polish
Ark Researcher, Vladimir Sobitchsky, whom he claims had been
there many times before. This time Jammal allowed Vladimir to
lead the way, because in a previous expedition, he had found a
cave he wanted to relocate, a cave that had become covered by an
avalanche before he could explore it. Jammal says they climbed
from Lake Kop for two and a half days then dug in the ice for
three days before he accidentally knocked a hole in a wall of ice
with his ax which turned out to be an entrance into the Ark.
I find Jammal's behavior after Vladimir fell to his death
peculiar. He says it took two and half days to get down to Kop
where he met a group of climbers. He told no one of the greatest
archaeological discovery in history, and apparently never
informed the authorities about the tragedy on the mountain. He
claims he couldn't because he was on the mountain illegally. He
does, however, say he told Asholian's son-in-law, whom he
assumes informed Vladimir's relatives. Frankly, we have nothing
but questions about this case. We were at Ararat in 1984, and no
climbers were allowed to climb on any route but the southern
route. He claims, however, to have seen a group of climbers at
Kop. He claims he rented mules at Igdir. How could he do this
without getting caught? The locals never miss anything, and they
are suspicious of outsiders (Remember the conspiracy theory!).
Vladimir is a Russian name. Was this man a Russian with Polish
citizenship? Could a man from an Iron-curtain country make many
trips to Turkey to look for a religious artifact? Does he have
any proof at all that he was ever in eastern Turkey, such as
photos, or his passport? Is he willing to have his wood tested
for age? Hagopian said the Ark was turned to stone. His sample
is a brown piece of wood which looks blackened by fire. He
claims he had a diary, but it was stolen (He did produce a police
report to show that his house was broken into!). His map, which
he shows, seems certain to have been copied from one or more of
those in Ark books. There are indeed several indications in his
interviews that he was familiar with Ark literature. Conclusion:
there is simply nothing in this story that adds up, or is in the
least bit helpful. Even in spite of his friend's death, does it
make sense to sit on one of the greatest discoveries? Wouldn't
most people want to return with credible people to authenticate
the discovery for the world? Couldn't he lead them right to the
spot? He certainly spent sufficient amount time on the mountain
to be acquainted with the area!
IV. The Geological Case for a Worldwide Flood
The purpose of this part of the film seemed to be two-fold: to
build a case for the reasonableness of a worldwide flood as
described in the Bible, and to prove that Mt. Ararat was once
covered by water. In our opinion it was one of the better parts
of the film. Many Christian scholars were interviewed as to the
possible mechanism for the cause of the Flood. What the viewers
were not told is that two different models were being presented.
One was the collapse of a vapor canopy surrounding the earth, and
the other was the theory of hydroplates where the water comes
from beneath the earth's crust. The latter was illustrated with
a very interesting computer simulation designed by Dr. Walter
Brown of the Center for Scientific Creation in Phoenix, AZ. This
information is also contained in a book authored by Brown titled:
IN THE BEGINNING.11 One only wishes that the documentary would
have had this quality throughout. It is the sort of thing that
could have gained it the credibility I believe the producers
wished to achieve.
To make a solid case for Mt. Ararat as the final resting place of
Noah's Ark, it seems to us that it would be absolutely essential
to have some proof that it was once submerged. The makers of the
documentary apparently shared this concern. The evidence given
however, is far from conclusive. An unidentified person is shown
exhibiting a huge chunk of sea salt.12 The narrator then intones
that large deposits of sea salt have been found on the mountain
as well as pillow lava. If both are true it would seem like an
air-tight case. The facts, however, are different than
presented. To our knowledge, no sea salt has been found on the
mountain, and the purported pillow lava is at best, debatable.
Geologists who have seen it are doubtful, but do admit that it
could be. One then has to ask: are these rocks the result of
the extrusion of lava into water or snow? We think it is
unlikely, since there are no other unassailable arguments that
the mountain was ever under water. For instance, there are
neither water formed sediments or fossiliforous rocks on the
mountain that we are aware of.13 Those who are searching for the
Ark on Ararat need to explain this glaring deficiency. When we
broach this problem with Ark hunters, the general reaction is:
"How can you be so skeptical when we have all these eyewitness
accounts?"
V. The Photographic Evidence
For a conclusion the documentary attempts to fortify the
eyewitness accounts with what appears to be proof from
photographs and satellite data. Interpreting photographs taken
from great distances on a mountain like Ararat can be highly
subjective. With the changing shadows, the snow, and the huge
basaltic monoliths found on this volcano, "Arks" can be found all
over the mountain.14 So the viewers would not miss the point,
each shape was highlighted with the profile of Hagopian's Ark.
These objects are all located in what is known as the Abich II
glacier that descends down the north side of the mountain into
the Ahora Gorge. (see photo #1)
The first photographic exhibit was taken in 1989 on a solo climb
by the native, Dr. Ahmet Arslan. The movie indicates that he
discovered the object after taking a near disastrous
fall(dramatized). The object is located near the top of the
glacier at slightly below 16,000 feet (see photos #1 and #2). We
were told that he was about 100 to 200 feet from the object.15
Dr. Arslan was sure that it was a man-made object and that it was
the Ark. The viewers also hear the voice of Arslan say that he
was paid by American Ark researchers to photograph that very
spot. The movie leads viewers to believe that some shadowy
figure claiming to have access to classified government satellite
information, informed Ark researchers that something man-made was
in the glacier at this spot, and that it was made of wood
(fibrous material).16 The same person indicated that another
piece appeared to lie about 1200 ft. below. The second
photograph, shown by Carl Baugh, allegedly shows that piece.
Some Ark researchers seem to have a great deal of faith in the
testimony and credentials of this mystery man. Who is he? Our
interest was piqued. After all, hundreds of thousands of
dollars have (and are) being spent because of this man.
We first learned his name from Larry Williams, a financier of Ark
expeditions, and editor of a treasure-hunting newsletter. He
goes by the name of George Steven and claims to be an expert in
Remote Sensing.17 In the past he has had an office in the China
Lake area of California. Today, we understand he is retired and
living in southern Nevada.
After we are shown the photographs, the documentary turns to
satellite data to supposedly confirm this evidence. This does
not add visually to the strength of the argument. The colored
squares (pixels) just do not grab you. You must rely on the
interpretation of the expert. While this data is taken from the
French satellite (Spot Image), we are also informed that
classified information from our government is conclusive that a
large man-made object is present in the glacier. From this we
can infer two things: that our government is covering up
information (another conspiracy) and that someone broke the law
to disclose this!
As in any good dramatic presentation, the movie leaves the best
for last. One final, shocking piece of evidence is now revealed.
An actual photograph of the Ark taken by Jim Irwin on his last
flight on the mountain! The Dutch television personality, Jon
van den Bosch, gives the details. The photograph is then
outlined so viewers will not miss it. (see photo #3) We are
then left with the impression that Jim Irwin, who had been
searching for Noah's Ark since 1982, had finally found his
spiritual quest but died before he could go back and verify it by
land.
It was with this last bit of "evidence" that we visibly reddened
in the face. Why? Because it was so blatantly false! My first
thoughts were: How is this any different from NBC rigging a
Chevrolet pickup to explode to demonstrate its lack of safety?
But what about this photograph?
The photograph shown was taken in 1986 by Bob Garbe, a pharmacist
from Ohio, who was part of the Charles Willis exploration team
that year. They had been camped on the eastern plateau for
almost two weeks with the mission to discover if the Ark might be
buried under the icecap. On an especially clear day, Garbe and
another team member walked to the northeast peak, climbed down
about 50 feet or so, and were stunned by the scenery as they
looked into the awesome Ahora Gorge. Before leaving, Garbe set
his camera on infinity and panned the Gorge area. Several months
later while scrutinizing his slides at home, he discovered the
unusual object that resembled Hagopian's Ark. Thinking he might
have the most valuable photograph in the world he immediately had
it copyrighted. He then sent us a copy to examine. I must
confess that I lost several night's sleep wondering if this is
it! However, after much analysis it was concluded that it was an
illusion and far too small to be Noah's Ark. However, I am still
known to occasionally project this slide onto a screen and
wonder!
In Summary, Jim Irwin did not take this slide. He never
concluded that he had discovered Noah's Ark. Moments before he
died he was discussing with some of his friends the feasibility
of continuing the search. Why then the false portrayal in the
film? Apparently, the Dutch group somehow got a hold of the
Garbe photograph and included it in their documentary made two
years later in 1988. They falsely concluded that it had been
taken from the air by Jim Irwin. Sun International then simply
included this footage as a fitting conclusion for their own
documentary. I'm not totally convinced. It's hard for this
reviewer to believe that the people at Sun did not know the true
circumstances of this photo since we made a copy available to
them, and since it had already appeared in the book NOAH'S ARK
AND THE LOST WORLD, by John Morris (see page 31).
After the revelation of the photo, the narrator makes some
startling concluding comments. Whereas in the beginning he goes
to great lengths to assure the audience that the search for
Noah's Ark is not a religious quest, but a scientific excursion,
he now implores his audience to consider the credibility of the
Bible! I don't have a problem with the credibility of the Bible,
nor do I have a problem challenging people to consider its
trustworthiness wherever it speaks. But, how can you invite
honest unbelieving skeptics to consider the credibility of the
Bible if close scrutiny of the evidence presented in this movie
emits even more skepticism? Can we establish the credibility of
Christianity with the incredible? Maybe you can sneak up on the
blind side of some, but those concerned about examining the
verities upon which they can base their lives will be
disillusioned.
On further reflection, I believe the goal of making the
Scriptures credible to the viewers of this movie was only
secondary. The real goal was to make an interesting movie at all
costs; to garner a good rating so CBC would be interested in
purchasing more of the same from Sun International. In this they
have apparently succeeded.
(Note: Video copies of this film can be ordered at: Sunn
Pictures, 2500 South 2300 West, #30, West Valley City, UT
84119. Price: $28.95. A book of the same
title is also due to be released.
FOOTNOTES:
1. "Other Mountains, Other Arks," Ararat Report, (Mar-May,
1989, #21). And, Bill Crouse, "Noah's Ark: Its Final
Berth," Archaeology and Biblical Research, Vol. 5, No.
3.(Summer, 1992), 66-77.
2. "Has Noah's Ark been Found," Ararat Report, (Jan. 1990),
And, "The Ice Cave, The Eye of the Bird, The Aaron-Garbe
Object," Ararat Report, (Jan-Feb. 1991).
3. Rene Noorbergen, The Ark File (Great Britain: New English
Library, 1974), pp. 160ff. While at Ararat in 1984, we
interviewed Navarra's guides. They also believed that
Navarra purchased his wood and carried it up the mountain.
4. For a good overview of the Navarra story we recommend:
Violet Cummings, Has Anyone Really Seen Noah's Ark (San
Diego, CA: Creation-Life Publishers, 1982), pp. 297-355.
This is probably the best of Cummings' work since there is
an attempt here at real analysis.
5. There are some Ark researchers who believe that Lee is still
withholding key information in the Hagopian testimony.
6. "The Weather Factor," Ararat Report, (April, 1987).
7. "Is the Ark in the Ahora Gorge?," Ararat Report, (Jan-Feb.,
1988). And, "The Ed Davis Testimony: An Addendum," Ararat
Report, (Jan-Feb., 1989).
8. Don Shockey, The Painful Mountain (Fresno, CA: Pioneer
Publishing Co., 1986), p.51. Here Shockey reproduces this
page from Davis's Bible.
9. Iran is made up of primarily three ethnic groups: Shaktiar,
Kurds, and the Lourds. The major group around Hamadan is
the Lourds. The Kurds are found more in the northwest.
10. I have since learned that Behling did not consent to being
interviewed for this movie. What you saw in the
documentary was a clip from an earlier interview.
11. To obtain a copy of this excellent book, write: Center for
Scientific Creation, 5612 N. 20th Place, Phoenix, AZ 85016.
Cost: $10. This includes postage.
12.This footage is from the earlier movie and must be Dr.
Clifford Burdick. In Burdick's geological report of 1967 of the
Ararat area he mentions a large deposit of sea salt discovered
about 50 miles away (see "Ararat: The Mother of Mountains." in
Creation Research Society Journal, 1967, pp. 9,10.
13. Morris, in his book, The Ark on Ararat, (p.11) reports that
fossils and sedimentation are found on Ararat. We are
unaware of the documentation for this claim. There is
sedimentation on Ararat, but it is the result of vulcanism
and not hydraulic action.
14. To see photos of the more prominent phantom arks, see:
"Phantom Arks on Ararat," Ararat Report, (Feb-Mar., 1990,
#24).
15. In the segment on the search for Noah's Ark on "Unsolved
Mysteries" it is claimed that Arslan was about 500-600 feet
from the object. This seems more realistic. This show was
originally broadcast on the NBC network on April 29, 1992.
It has since been repeated.
16. In "The Unsolved Mysteries" segment this man was filmed in
darkness. He is George Steven, remote sensing expert.
17. Larry Williams, The Mountain of Moses: The Discovery of
Mount Sinai (New York: Wynwood Press, 1990), pp.219-222.
Williams incorrectly adds an "s" to the end of his name.
THE SEARCH FOR NOAH'S ARK ON UNSOLVED MYSTERIES
One year ago (Apr. '92) Noah's Ark was the subject for a segment
of "Unsolved Mysteries". It was aired in most of the U.S. the
day the riots started in Los Angeles. The idea for this subject
originated with Robbin Simmons and George Adams who also produced
much of the footage. Visual Arts Enterprises, a company owned by
Adams, holds the copyright to this material. We understand that
a full-lengthed work entitled "Treasure of Agri Dagh" is in the
works. We will keep you posted when we hear of its release.
This is the same company that produced the video "Visions of
Ararat" which we reported on earlier in these pages (AR.Jan-Feb.
1991).
We were pleasantly surprised by the "Unsolved Mysteries"
presentation. It was reasonably fair and accurate. It
juxtaposed the views of Don Shockey (The Ark is on Ararat) with
those of Dave Fasold (The Durupinar Site).
FROM THE EDITOR
This is the first ARARAT REPORT published so far in '93. In '92
there was only the "April" issue. We would have liked to publish
more but due to other pressing ministry activities, it has not
been possible. We also admit that we have not been all that
inspired with worthy information to write about. Our goal is to
do several more issues this year. Some of the things we would
like to report on are: Any search activity this summer,
Anastasia and the Ark, the earliest mention of Mt. Ararat as the
landing place of the Ark, the Chinese legend of Flood, ancient
ruins on Ararat, Muhammad and the Ark, the psychology and
motivation of ark-hunters, pseudo-science and the search for the
Ark, the Flood in the psuedopigraphia, other mountains-other
Arks, the Ark and the Book of Jasher, and the spiritual reasons
for the Flood. We may not write on all these, but they are
subjects under consideration. We invite you, the reader, to
contribute to the above subjects, suggest new topics, or even
submit your own manuscripts. We also invite a response to this
issue. Were we fair with this review?
Back to Idle Thoughts Are Often True
