"In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened. And the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights."
"And it came to pass in the six hundredth and first year, in the first [month], the first [day] of the month, the waters were dried up from off the earth: and Noah removed the covering of the ark, and looked, and, behold, the face of the ground was dry. And in the second month, on the seven and twentieth day of the month, was the earth dried. And God spake unto Noah, saying, Go forth of the ark, thou, and thy wife, and thy sons, and thy sons' wives with thee." Genesis 7:11-12; 8:13-16.

James Ussher, who studied these dates quite a bit, dates the events from the day Noah entered the ark on Sunday, December 7, 2349 BC to Thursday, December 18, 2348 BC when Noah and his family left the vessel of their rescue. If perhaps not exact, these dates are nevertheless a good approximation of the years involved according to biblical reckoning.

Even though geologists today, are doubters of anything out of the ordinary, they don't seem to want to draw conclusions from the experience of a) the sudden appearance of the island of Surtsey, off the coast of Iceland on Friday November 8, 1963 and how life germinated there within a rather short time, b) the rapid changes brought on by the Mt. St. Helens eruption on Sunday May 18, 1980, c) and other, lesser known sudden flood models. When the fountains of the deep opened, these were features existing during pre-Flood times. The water of these `fountains' are now in the oceans of the world.

A reasonable and thoughtful feasibility study concludes that the number of clean animals was relatively small and overall, only representatives of each kind with a highly adaptable gene pool of air breathing animals needed to be taken. The author concludes that a biblical "kind" is not limited to a specie or genus, it may go as high as the `family' types. The test would be which "kinds" could mate with each other. Cases of cross `genus' mating are known. There was only one horse, donkey, zebra kind. One dog, fox, wolf kind and so on. Various species derived in post-flood times from a large adaptable gene pool. Of the larger animals needed to be present only one juvenile pair. On the subject of germs, the author concludes that today's harmful germs may not have been always harmful. Pre-flood they may have lived in a different environment and only later adapted to creature hosts in a harmful way to the creatures. Much more on this subject can be read at this AiG website.

An overview of the terrain and the fossilized/petrified ark sunk in mud.
On the rugged Plateau the smooth oval form in rear center contrasts with gullied terrain around it. `Prow' points toward peaks of Agri-Tendueruk area. Turkish soldiers, who escorted the expedition, dynamited a section of the object's thick-packed-earth side. Small bits of wood but no large chunks were found in the rim. Of course one would have to look for petrified wood, not intact wood fibers.

"However, the Armenians call this place `The Place of Descent'; for the ark being saved in that place, its remains are shewn there by the inhabitants to this day." [Josephus, Antiquities, Bk. I, ch. III, Sec. 5][500]

Obviously, his remarks indicate that the site had been visited over a long period of time during ancient times.

The apparent drawing of a Babel like tower on one of the commemorative stones near the ark site.[The shadow is the camera of a photographer.]

Question: What convinces you at CIAS that this is the site where Noah's ark rests?

Answer: Several points come to mind. Among the finds in the area was a commemorative stone showing a drawn `Tower of Babel' like structure as we had them in our children books. Now, I tend to think that these were made by visitors during the Christian era, a good many years before our time and that is why we find such images. What it does tell me, is that this very site was regarded as the `Ark Site' long before the prejudices of our time. In addition the several other finds which were made and which we feature are sufficient reasons, that this is the site.

Question: But haven't these finds been debunked?

Answer: Yes, people debunk everything that crosses one's own ideas. They deny the samples and measurements and so on. They also deny common sense in some cases and they would probably have denied that God would destroy the pre-flood world had they lived in those times.

National Geography apparently is planning an expedition to 18854 foot (5137 meters) Mt. Ararat in eastern Turkey to try and locate the Ark of Noah. The words,

"And the ark rested in the 7th month, on the 17th day, upon the mountains of Ararat." Genesis 8:4.

seem to indicate that the ark came to be grounded somewhere in the mountain range called Ararat. Today's Mt. Ararat is an intrusive volcano which must have erupted at the site after the Flood. In 1848, a massive Mt. St. Helen like eruption blew away the north-east side of the volcano. On the basis of Mr. Wyatt's [1000] first hand knowledge from living in the Hawaiian Islands convinced him, if the ark would have rested on the mountain, it would have been destroyed at that time. For this reason alone those who intend to find the ark remains on the top of this peak will be disappointed.

It was the discoverer Ron Wyatt who had, on the basis of some 1975 experiments with a model ship in a mountain stream, discovered how such man made objects behave when drifting toward an artificial, lonely mountain peak he molded in open water. He tried various `mountainous' configurations and floated the ship model toward them. What he learned was that a ship approaching a simple peak extending out of the water would cause it to simply float around it, not approaching and certainly not landing on it. This phenomena was governed by the natural laws of 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 model ark 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.

The study of water as a fluid, with its unique properties, and the study of hydrodynamics (fluid mechanics) and wave causation and motion is a most involved and complicated science. The actions and reactions of water and an object floating on that water cannot possibly be studied in depth here -- but some simple rules must be understood.

If your ship on the open sea approaches a mountain extending out of the ocean, only one of two things can happen.

1) the ship will be carried around the mountain with the lateral water displacement,or
2) the waves can be of such force and direction that they carry the ship right into the side of the mountain, with such force that the ship would break into pieces.

But it would NOT come to rest on that steep mountain side. It just wouldn't happen. And if that mountain peak were directly under the ship and the waters slowly descended, the ship STILL wouldn't land on the mountainside (such as on Mt. Ararat). The water displacement and movement around the underwater mountain would still cause the ship to be removed from the mass (of the mountain) with the water.

The necessary criteria for a ship to land on a mountainside as sea waters descend would involve a process by which the water displacement would trap the ship within an area, such as an eddy could do. At least, that's what Ron believed and still believes."

The September 5, 1960 `Life Magazine' article of the U-2 spy plane photos read like this:

"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.[1100] 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'."

The splayed, 186 foot wide remains of the `Nu'hun Gemisi', Turkish for `Noah's Ship', allowed Wyatt to calculate that the ship would have measured almost 86 feet wide, 51 ½ feet high and 515 feet long. Not until 1977 was he able to travel to the site which is located near the village of `Dogubeyazit' near the Iranian border. On this visit, having obtained all necessary permits, he was shown several very large anchor stones several of which had 8 crosses carved in its surface. In a very ancient looking grave yard he was shown tombstones showing a simple rendition of a three story ship. He photographed these but when toward the end of his stay the locals tried to rob him and he had to flee he lost some of these images.

A very ancient house with thick stone walls and a spread out area of stone fences seemed to Ron that this could have been the site of Noah's post Flood home. In the summer they would have lived in tents and in the winter in a protective stone house as local people still do today. Not far behind the ruins of this `house' was a park like hilly area. In the middle of the hill he photographed a 12x12x12 foot, sqarish, altar like stone pile. The evidence in the surrounding rock fenced area showed signs of preparing animals for sacrifice, all of which Ron documented at the time.

While all indicators seem to confirm that the ark has been found, we do not know where it was constructed. Remains of what appears to be mineralized wood, even laminated wood with nails, have been found but its origin can hardly be determined. While hurricanes can be devastating, they are no match to the Noachian Flood which was driven more by simultaneous tectonic upheavals which wiped out any Pre-Flood landmarks.

The story of Noah and the Flood was kept alive as folklore in a number of cultures. In Sanskrit, we are told, the name `Manu' is very likely derived from Noah (MaNU=Noah?).

News of the 1978 earthquake in the area of the ark remains prompted Ron to return to the location in 1979. He found `evenly spaced indentations on the ark like object, which looked like decaying rib timbers. The earthquake had also cracked the remains of the ark from "stem to stern" and Ron, having government permits, was able to take samples from deep within. He also took samples of material outside of the object for comparison. Galbraith Labs in Knoxville, Tennessee tested the samples and determined the outside sample contained 1.88% carbon; but the one from inside the crack yielded a 4.95% carbon, an amount that was consistent with the presence of prior living matter, such as decayed or petrified wood. Hopefully, in time, more data will show this pattern better. The lab results also showed a surprisingly high iron content.

Quite a ways up the mountainside, Ron and his guide found the very interesting section of earth measuring 120 x 40 feet, which was rimmed by what appeared to be petrified wood, and within its perimeter was a massive amount of strange looking "rock". This "rock" was quite heavy and tinged green in places, and therefore Ron believed it to be some type of metal. He had an idea as to what the wood perimeter was but perhaps a lab analysis of the "rock" material would help confirm his idea. Ron suspected that the `metallic (84.14% manganese dioxide)' remains above the site was actually a portion of the bottom of the ship which had sunk into the mud as the flood waters subsided. When the earth was dried, this section was firmly embedded in the ground, and as the ark was swept down the mountainside, this portion was ripped away.

Since the boat shaped object is located in a mud-flow which contains remnants of volcanic rock, Ron believed this mud-flow was actually a deteriorated lava flow [1500]. The boat shaped object looked exactly like a ship wreck, but it was impaled on a very large outcropping of limestone directly through from the western side to its mid-section. To Ron, it looked as if the ship had been transported down the mountainside by the lava flow (which covered the ship) and, sliding sideways, it was impaled on this large outcropping of limestone which caused it to be "racked", exactly like a car, that it literally wrapped around a `telephone pole'.

The strange looking "rock" he found within this perimeter was very similar in appearance to "rock" he found just below the lower section of the ship's tip - a broken off section.

He theorized that this was ballast material placed in the hull of the Ark, and when the portion of the bottom was ripped off, a large amount of ballast fell out. Other ballast which remained in the intact portion of the ark was now falling out from the broken off lower section.

Mr. Wyatt's last trip to Turkey was in 1984. Since then Turkish scientists confirmed Ron's metal detecting outlines above the interior of the `ark'. But even today, the doubting `Thomases' are still not seeing the light and want to find the ark on the Greater Mt. Ararat itself. Whatever the object is sticking out of the snow - is it a ship? Or is it a barn? Or is it the first, old Hyatt Regency Hotel?

Subsequent investigations showed that the `ark' site was a much venerated place and had been visited anciently by many people, some of whom were buried there. Today the site is fenced in and protected by the Turkish government.

Top - stern
Bottom - bow
Intrusive rock - A,12-14;
Rib timbers - A,1-10;
Rivets - A,1-22;

We believe enough evidence has been found to affirm that the remains of the Ark of Noah have been located. Therefore, we believe now that the Flood (and the Exodus Account) are new pillars upon which we can rely and which validate the Old Testament historical aspects against everything that has been said before on this topic. History has come full circle, the pendulum swings now the other way.

Finding several large, industrial size, mineralized metal alloy rivet like fasteners with a washer at the site of the `Ark of Noah' in southern Turkey, has been an eye opener for those who saw the reports. These rivets with their washer measure about 5 inches in diameter. Here is what was found.

Following the biblical account closely, the ark was built from pre-Flood materials. Since that world vanished we cannot determine today where around the globe the ark was constructed and how far it drifted during the ca. 140 day period it was afloat (Gen. 7:11 & 8:4). We can also deduce that the long life attributed to the pre-Flood patriarchs lend itself wonderfully in learning the science of all there was to learn in their time. When the plans for building this big ship were made, we ought not to be surprised that the need for rivet like connectors was clearly recognized and a given in order to hold the mighty planks of wood together. Producing glue by burning bones and boiling hide was also easily within the realm of experimental discoveries among the workmen of Noah. Since they could produce metal implements, they probably also could produce metals of varying degrees of hardness, by accident or after time by design, to be used as tools, nails, flat irons, joints, rivets, metal wedges, cooking pots and perhaps metal crucibles to name a few. While in science as understood today, only real evidence can be used to postulate such points made just now, we are happy to say, that ancient, various metals containing objects were found in the vicinity of the ark. Because of their composition, these are not easily explained as natural occurring finds, but must have been man made. As of now no scientific excavation of the ark has taken place, only random finds from likely spots have been preserved so far. We think we know at least one main expectation of the Turkish government with respect to which archaeological team would be allowed to dig there.

Hello, I.R., a New Zealand man interested in boats and biblical stuff, phoned me and asked if I could calculate the distance between two GPS locations that he recorded in eastern Turkey, shortly after the GPS error was removed from the satellite transmission.

The numbers he got were ...

Top:

North 39 deg 26.395 decimal
East 044 deg 14.017

Bottom:

North 39 deg 26.475
East 044 deg 14.108

The answer popped up on the computer screen and he said, "157 metres."
So I asked what is that in feet and he changed the program to show feet, and he said, "516 feet."
Then the number 20.623 inches per cubit came to mind, so I got him to alter the program once more.
The answer that popped up on the screen .... 300 cubits.

I then directed one of the computers there to `www.anchorstone.com' and found the 1959 aerial photograph of Noah's ark.

With my experience with GPS, I would put the error at less than 2 meters.

The official recorded elevation measurements were:

Note: According to the biblical record, the ark of Noah was to be 300 cubits long, 50 cubits wide and 30 cubits in height (Genesis 6:15). The length of this cubit was understood to be the Egyptian royal cubit which has been determined to be 20.623 inches in length. This makes sense also in light of Moses having been the man who put together the `toledoth' of Genesis. Measuring the remains of Noah's ark gave 515 feet in length, 138 feet wide after the ark had decayed enough for it to fall apart in such a way that the rib timbers fell by their own weight to their respective sides and the bow and stern falling and each of these producing the additional length and width measurements obtained. The original size in feet was 508 feet in length, 85 feet 9 inches in width and 51 feet 5 inches in height. The interior substructure of what remains of the posts has been estimated to reach from 12 feet in the front to 25 feet in the middle and 8 feet at the rear. The numbers thought to account for what could be discerned from the surface are from front to rear: 12, 16, 22, 25, 21, 16, 13, 8 - in regular intervals. As the remains of the ark indicate, the ship was not built like a box but in regular ship shape, so to speak.

Numbers like that, as well as site artifacts, speak for themselves. They are concrete evidence that something important may be discovered at the location. Something which promises to provide the long sought answers to what happened in those long gone days otherwise only known from the biblical record. The data provided above are better data than mute fossils could ever provide even though such were found at Noah's ark site too and we shall discuss them. We have actual, physical size measurements in close agreement with the biblical record.

Organic derived remains discovered included petrified wood with what appear to be nails, evidence of wood glue apparently used to glue flat wood together, fossilized finger bones, most closely matching those of human fingers, which by comparison are larger than fingers humans have today. Items which appear to be fossilized fruits of the size of a cantaloupe, and miscellaneous bones. How these relate to the ark itself may be more difficult to determine, but they appear to have been buried within the confines of the ark since the time the ship landed or very close to it. Why human appearing bones were found at the location may not be obvious today.

The chemical analysis of a rivet revealed 21.1% Silicon, 8.67% Iron, 8.51% Aluminum, 2.52% Potassium, 2.55% Calcium, 2.48% Sodium, 1.61% Titanium, 1.33% Magnesium, 0.47% Phosphorous, 0.17% Manganese and 0.13% Carbon. All other elements were less than 0.1%. The low Carbon content makes it non-organic.

That after some 4400 years this array of metals was still detected is quite a surprise and shows the antiquity of the material from a time when anything that looked like metal containing rock was molten down and made into desired implements.

"The Possible Oxide Composition Location 2 of a "Rivet".
Note: When an object undergoes the process of fossilization, as its material decays it is replaced by material in the surrounding soil or water. The analysis revealed exactly what would be expected to be found in a fossilized metal washer and rivet (non-living matter) attached to a piece of fossilized wood (once living matter, See below).

The calculated numbers obtained were:

45.20% SiO₂
15.84% Al₂O₃
10.02% Fe₂O₃
03.97% CaO
03.44% Na₂O
03.00% K₂O
02.93% TiO₂
01.98% MgO
01.23% P₂O₅
00.30% MnO₂

[005] Genesis 7:7 states that Noah entered into the ark and seven days later the Flood started but verse 13 states that "on the very day [when the rain began] Noah ... entered the ark" meaning that filling it with all its passengers occurred over a period of seven days.
[0010] See the professional and informative Tas Walker's website.
[0500] According to Young's Concordance, "Armenia, according to tradition, was settled by Haik, son of Togarnah, and grandson of Japhet (Gen. 10:3); it is noticed in Scripture under the names Togarnath and Ararat. The country, afterwards divided into Lesser and Greater Armenia, was frequently invaded by the Assyrians, the Babylonians, the Medes and Persians and for many years remained in subjection to one or other of these empires. The accounts given by Greek and Roman writers are at variance with those of the Armenian historians. M. ST. Martin has investigated the subject with diligence, and upon his work the following chronological table is based:
In BC 2107, Haik, fleeing from Belus king of Assyria, settles in Armenia, and becomes its first ruler;
1827: accession of Aram, who carries his arms into Asia Minor and founds Mazaca , i.e. Cæsareia of Cappadocia.
1725: Armenia becomes subject to Assyria.
743: Baroïr renders it independent.
565: accession of Tigranes, who restores it to its ancient position.
323: on the death of Alexander it falls under the sway of Greek governors.
317: under Ardoates it throws off the Grecian yoke.
149: Valarsaces or Wagharshag I., founds the dynasty of the Arsacidæ. 34: Anthony leads its sovereign captive to Alexandria.
30: on the death of Anthony, Artaxes expels the Romans, and is crowned king.
In AD 16: Vonones, king of the Parthians, seeks shelter in Armenia, and is made king.
18: Germanicus makes Zeno king under the name of Artaxias.
62: Tiridates king, by order of Nero.
115: invaded and conquered by Trajan.
232: subjected by Ardashir, king of Persia.
276: Tiridates is converted to Christianity by Gregory (not a pope. Caius was Pope then).
387: Armenia divided between the Romans and the Persians.
428: end of the kingdom of the Arsacidæ. (2.Kings 19:37; Isaiah 37, 38.
[1000] While Ron Wyatt was not a trained archaeologist and may have presented some things not quite correct or skillfully to support his views, we allow him some mistakes but think his main discovery is not significantly enough discredited by it. After all, if trained archaeologists can make mistakes, do we from then on doubt everything they found? What if they made big chronological errors without `seeing' their error, what then? At any rate our question is, `How can scientists ignore the abundant evidence on earth, yet believe so much about so little on Mars?'
[1100] Reports of additional [at least 2] boat like shapes of smaller sizes near the `ark' site lead some to dismiss the whole area as anything but natural formations. While we know of only one ark and there probably was only one ark, we may want to consider that smaller vessels may have been constructed some time after the flood by the survivors for transportation and before mud flows did their work. [No, I was not able to check if these `boat' like features are photoshop enhancements.]
[1500] According to a recent (2005) visitor to the site, his group thought the soil around the ark was not of (recent) igneous/lava origin but regular mud from occasional flooding. We are not sure how qualified this observation is but would add that the process of decay in that area would be quite rapid and thorough and we should not expect to find the timbers themselves but only the minerals which replaced them. That would mean, someone taking a soil sample for analysis, would need to have an adequate number of well chosen samples for comparison purposes.