This is quite lengthy…
But it serves it’s purpose…Namely…

To ASSUME a REMOTE VIEWPOINT, regarding the PIPS SAGA as we know it….
So PLEASE…read the whole story…I have some added comments in the end that will
ENLIGHT you people of what we are dealing with here…

For those who don’t know about the STORY below…
Itr’s about the ARK OF NOAH…remember from the Holy Bible…
The One who ESCAPED the Great Flood …The DELUGE…

The Guy asking questions is Jonathan Gray…( JG)
A researcher into historical events….
The One who’s claiming to have found NOAH’s ARK up in the mountains of ARARAT is
The American amateur archaeologist Ron Wyatt( RW)
and his wife Mary Nell Wyatt (MNW)

The attempts to discredit the above peoples findings is quite similar to the attempts to discredit BM and his VISION….

So this a SIMILAR event taking place in our times…

So…Jonathan…give us the FACTS please…
----------------------------------------------------------------------------


THOSE AWKWARD QUESTIONS
“There’s no doubt this is the Ark. I’ll stake my eternal life on it!”
I looked at him. He really, truly means it, I thought.
Ron kept his eye on the road. We were Memphis bound. A ten hour
trip, it was - plenty of time to interrogate him. “Ask anything you
like,” he urged.
Mary Nell, I could see, was also ready to respond. They were in this
together and deeply committed. That was obvious.
“Have you seen the article in Creation Ex Nihilo (Sept.-Nov. 1992)
debunking your research?” I queried.
Mary Nell was quick to respond. “Yes,” she said. “The article in
question contained a massive amount of wrong information.”
“They complain you’re unwilling to reveal all.”
“I’ll state up front,” replied Ron, “that we are not ready to release all
of our evidence on Noah’s Ark. This will be done when we are
completely finished with our research. It has been our experience that
if we release our information ‘piece-meal’, the critics have time to find
ways to ‘explain away’ each evidence, even though the rationale
behind these explanations is not realistic. Therefore, we are
withholding the bulk of our research until we are completely finished.”
“You understand,” said Mary Nell, “we will not be bullied into
revealing all of our research until we are finished with our work.
“Prior to that article we had lots of phone calls from Australia trying
to get us to reveal certain evidences. We suspect that our refusal was
one of the reasons for that article.”


OTHER SIMILAR BOAT SHAPES?
Jonathan Gray: Are there not other boat-shaped formations in the
area, which are purely natural? I’ll quote from that article (p.27), in
reference to the original 1950’s photographs of the Ark site taken
during the NATO survey of the area:
“However, this particular boat-shape is far from unique. The Turkish
Air Force released another photograph (see page 32) several years ago
showing three similar boat-shapes in the mudflow material on the
footslopes of nearby Lesser Mount Ararat.”

Ron Wyatt: There are other natural formations which have a
superficially similar shape, but these do not have the special
characteristics of this site.
In the presence of Turkish authorities and other observers, I performed
an electronic survey of a site that some critics said resembled the boat
formation. (The similarities were vague… non-existent.) The metal
detectors and subsurface radar scans showed nothing in the site that
was not present anywhere in the area.

Mary Nell Wyatt: In the NATO surveys of this area of Turkey, which
were done in the 1950’s, every inch of this section of eastern Turkey
was photographed by high-altitude aircraft. The region was within 20
miles of the Russian border and a Soviet missile base. These
photographs were taken so that it could later be determined if missiles
had been moved into the area by comparing current photos with the
earlier ones. Suffice it to say, every inch of ground was thoroughly
photographed and documented, especially the remote areas of Greater
and Lesser Ararat, which could provide excellent hiding places.
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.”
Had there been any other formations even remotely similar in shape,
these would have been detected in these surveys, which were very
carefully examined.

Careful examination of the photo presented in the article will show
that it has been touched up. Especially notice the one in the bottom left
section. [You can find this Turkish Air Force photo back in Chapter
10, in the form in which Creation Ex Nihilo reproduced it.]
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 “20/20” did their filming.
These broadcasts were initiated by Dr. John Baumgardner, a
geophysicist with Los Alamos National Laboratories in New Mexico
and centered on interviews with him, on the work he was participating
in with Ron and David Fasold at that time in investigating the “boatshaped’
object.
In one newscast they report:
“...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 Ankara, Turkey, Dr.
Baumgardner stated:
“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.


METAL READINGS: RANDOM, NOT
REGULAR?
JG: 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) ‘hotspots’ were
indeed found, but these were randomly distributed and not in a regular
pattern along lines.”
MNW:In the CBN interviews I have just referred to, the statement is
made by the newscaster:
“...Using a metal detector, Baumgardner has been able to confirm the
existence of metal at regular intervals”. [Mary Nell passed me a
newspaper article, Noah’s Ark found? ] See, the reporter writes of a
speech John Baumgardner gave at Los Alamos National Labs:
“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 “hotspots”.


METAL DETECTOR “A DIVINING
ROD”?
JG: You are accused of using a “crank” device to obtain the iron
patterns over the boat-shaped object.(p.29) The writer claims that the
molecular frequency generator is nothing but a “divining rod”:
“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.”
Are the readings based entirely on that molecular frequency generator?

RW: We have used three types of metal detectors:
-Pulse induction
-Ferromagnetic
-Molecular frequency generator
And also we have used a single antenna radar scanner. So even if you
want to delete No. 3, the others give the same identical patterns.
MNW:In 1988, Ray Brubaker, of God’s News Behind the News in St.
Petersburg, Florida, asked an electrical engineer to research Ron’s
claims.
This independent, non-biased research on the part of Terry Johnson of
Tampa, FL, included research on the molecular frequency generator.
Here’s the report and it explains in layman’s terms. [She handed me
the report, which I have published in my book Discoveries: Questions
Answered, pages 84-86.]

Also, notice that the Ex Nihilo article condemning this gives no names
of the scientists who supposedly built and tested these devices.
Also, Joe Walker, of Nashville, TN. used the molecular frequency
generator to help the police department locate the body of a boy
drowned in a lake. [I was also presented with a copy of this, which is
reproduced in the same book, page 82.]
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”.
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 subsurface interface radar.


COMPLETE RADAR SCANS
NEVER DONE BY RON WYATT?
JG: Claims are made that the radar data is not accurate and that a
scan of the entire structure 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.”( p. 29)
MNW: Again, let me stress that this author never had access to any of
our research. He only received second hand reports from various
people. We are still holding our “aces in the hold” until we are
finished, but to prove that other scans were done, we have attached for
you a copy of one of Ron’s radar permits from 1987 [I was given
opportunity to examine this permit.] This is positive proof that there
were scans that these people have no idea about.
And there were numerous scans, not just one. Also attached is a copy
of Ron’s certificate of training on the GSSI radar equipment [I was
able to authenticate this, also.]
JG: What type of radar scanner did you use?
RW: 51R3 subsurface radar scanner.
JG: Was the radar used in sweeps in three directions? I mean, was
sweep triangulated?
RW: Yes, the sweeps were longitudinal, transverse and lateral, along
the sides.
JG: Did you do this for the whole length of the object?
RW: Yes.
JG: In your video, a computer visualisation of the skeleton of a
ship is portrayed. From the radar readings to the computer images: did
you use a software program to analyse the images? How did you get
the computer images from the radar images? Are the end results
enhanced by the computer? How tamper-proof is the transfer to the
computer?
RW: We used the same technique which the U.S. government uses
when they see a satellite image and they don’t know what it is. It is
called a Ground Truth unit, which verifies beyond doubt. It is not
enhanced. Raw data from the scan.
Joseph Rosetta, vice-president of Geophysical Survey Systems, Inc.,
whose radar system we used, said of the boat-shaped object,
afterwards, “You’d never see anything like that in natural
geography.... Some humans made this structure, whatever it is.”
(“Science/ Technology” promotion in Sunday Telegraph (N.H.), August 3, 1986)
This company’s subsurface interface radar system is used worldwide
to test structures of nuclear power plants, to locate buried pipes, cables
and wires, and to examine the ground beneath roads.
Tom Fenner and Joe Rosetta (both of Geophysical Survey Systems,
Inc., of Hudson, New Hampshire) said there is no way you can fake a
radar reading. What is more, the radar survey was videotaped, as we
did it. I now have about a thousand feet of radar scan print-outs.
JG: The interface radar unit, I understand, could penetrate forty feet
under the surface and could clearly depict what was inside the mound.
Have you seen anything?
RW: Yes, we have seen walls, cavities, a door near the south end,
and also ramps. There are chambers. Along the keel, there is timber 20
feet through. At the same end as the door, near the bow, there are two
large round tanks, 14 feet high and 24 feet across, with metal bands
around them. The deck support timbers are intact along the western
side and this can be seen by means of the subsurface interface radar.


“NOT MAN-MADE” SAYS GSSI?
JG: The claim is made that the manufacturer of the radar scanner,
GSSI of Hudson, New Hampshire, states that they do not believe the
formation to contain man-made structure:
“Fenner goes on to indicate that neither he nor GSSI believes the
formation to be manmade.”(p. 30)
MNW: Here, Jonathan, is an article entitled, “Archaeologist certain
he’s found the Ark”. It’s dated August 3, 1986. Now, in 1992, we have
received this article from GSSI in their information packet which they
send out to people interested in the subsurface interface radar scanners.
[Discoveries: Questions Answered, page 125] It’s rather strange that
they would deny that they believe this to contain man-made structure,
when in 1992 they are using this article in their advertising, In the
article, Joe Rosetta, the vice-president of GSSI (and also Tom
Fenner’s boss) states:
“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 it’s use on the Noah’s Ark site:
“GSSI systems have travelled to Egypt to search for underground
tombs 4,000 years old, to Turkey to locate the true resting place of
Noah’s Ark, and to the Arabian peninsula to find the site of an ancient
city that was a spice-trading center.” [Ibid., page 126]
Joe Rosetta also appeared on the HudsonNH television channel 9 in
an interview in which he states, while displaying the actual scan from
the Ark, which we show in our presentations:
“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 Ark - we simply
state their conclusions as to what the tests or evidence represent, such
as the fact that the radar scans definitely show man-made structure.
When Joe Rosetta viewed the data, he was shown the video of the scan
in progress on the boat. 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 videoed the entire process of their interpreting the scan results, and
we have that video in our possession.


THE DECK TIMBER NOT PROVEN?
JG: Why do you say there is petrified wood when others say no?
RW: Well, the Ark became buried in mud and sand, which by a
process of siliconization, petrified the giant ship and preserved its
shape.
JG: But they say that what you claim to be wood has no growth
rings.
RW: These same scientists fail to recognise the fact that pre-Flood
vegetation had no seasonal growth rings.
So these men, upon observance of the structural remains that appear
on the boat-shaped object at regular intervals, declared them to be
rocks! 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 wood. The Bible says there was no rain [Gen.2:5,6],
that a mist went up and watered the whole face of the earth. Are not
growth rings the result of a variance in water supply and seasonal
temperature changes in trees and other vegetation?
RW: I’ll quote Baxter, in the publications of the transactions of the
KansasAcademy of Science. He said this:
“It has been shown that a lack of annual rings is characteristic of wood
of all Carboniferous plants the world over.” [Excerpt from a presentation to the
Association of Geological and Earth Sciences at Oxford University, U.K., by John Mackay,
Creation Research Director. (Excerpt from his video of that talk)]
And notice this. [He passed me a statement from an encyclopedia
referring to ancient sigiillarias found without any growth rings.] “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.” [The Larousse Encyclopedia
of the Earth.. London: The Hamlyn Publishing Group Limited, revised ed. 1972, p.369]
I tell you, if growth rings were found in the wood of the Ark, it would
be a fake or a replica.
JG: Your opponents say that you will not subject your “wood” sample
to scientific scrutiny.(p.31)
RW: Just look at the specimen. It’s behind the seat. See where a
section has been cut off the corner of this piece of deck timber? Thin
sections have been cut for microscopic examination.
We have extensive testing done on this sample, most of which will
remain confidential until we are finished working. However, we can
positively prove that the lab tests prove it to contain organic carbon,
and that it has been examined by thin section under electron
microscope.


(Jonathan is giving Ron Wyatt a real HARD time in his questioning…isn’t he?
Well.that’s the Nature of Jonathan Gray…”show me the evidence”…sort of..
…added by Largo)

JG: You say this is laminated deck timber. You know your opponents
are saying that the “adhesive” between each layer may be only calcite
veining.(p.31)
RW: Take a look at that sample again. Look, the excess of the
cementing substance was squeezed out the end of the plank, hardened,
and remained fossilised. Where the cut was made, you can see how
thin and even it is inside between each layer of board. It was squeezed
and ran down to appear wider only on the outside. It’s an adhesive.
And it’s laminated wood. That’s for sure.
MNW: The lab test [Discoveries: Questions Answered, page 100], from Galbraith
labs, shows 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 videoed the entire
process, including the entire process with the electron microscope -
filming the screens as they were viewed. These folks will just have to
wait to learn about these evidences at the same time everyone else
does. 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.
See this? A photo of one of the electron microscope scans. [Ibid., page
103] Jonathan, the complete data on all the tests on this deck timber
will be released just as soon as we finish work.
JG: Do you have any idea what type of wood it is?
RW: The latest test has confirmed that the two outer layers are of
cypress; the inner layer is, as yet, unidentified.


TURKS FOUND NO METAL OBJECTS?
MNW: It is claimed that Ron lied about Turks finding metal objects—
4 foot long metal rods—in the site.
JG: Yes, I read that:
“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.” (p. 33)
MNW: Well, in the article referred to earlier regarding the John
Baumgardner report at Los Alamos Labs, 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.” [Discoveries:Questions Answered, page 94]
As a scientist, he isn’t going to report to Los Alamos Labs something
he doesn’t know to be fact.


RON WYATT PLANTED ARTEFACTS?
JG: Several claims are made that Dr. Bayraktutan, a member of the
Noah’s Ark Commission in Turkey, does not support Ron’s claims.
They even state that he accuses Ron of “pIanting” artefacts on the site:
“...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.”( p . 33)
MNW: In late July this year (1992), I personally was with Ron when
he met with Dr. Bayraktutan in Erzurum, Turkey, in the dining room
of the Oral Hotel. I witnessed the entire conversation and personally
asked him questions about certain things. He expressed concern about
the people in Australia and was relieved to discover that Ron was not
working with them.
He also told us that 2 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 Ankara.
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
when Ron found the fossilized rivet. [Discoveries: Questions Answered, page
116]
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.
The author of this magazine article has never met Ron. He has never
had access to our research except through what he could learn from
other people.


RIVET IS JUST BASALT?
JG: It is claimed, Ron, that the fossilised “rivet” you found, is only
basalt, and they suggest the same for a lot of other things, as well. (p.32)
MNW:I’ll answer that, Jonathan. Again, as we said earlier, there are
some things which we just are not going to release. However, in order
to vindicate the attack on the rivet, here is part of a lab report from
Teledyne-AIlvac. [Discoveries: Questions Answered, page 91]
The report includes a paragraph which is extremely important - I have
blacked out names and addresses of the lab because we cannot allow
them to be harassed by inquisitive phone calls. Any questions relating
to the work done at this lab will be answered when we release our
data. As mentioned earlier, I personally videoed all work in progress,
including their taking the samples to be tested, etc.
This paragraph mentioned as being quite important is the last one of
the attached report from Teledyne-AlIvac. It is actually at the top of
page 2, but I placed it so as to reflect the lab’s letterhead. 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 centimeter 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 centimeter, we have an area that contains almost 15 times more
carbon as 1 centimeter 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.
Again, the author of the Ex Nihilo article has never seen the rivet.


THE “ANCHOR STONES” MADE BY ARMENIANS?
JG: It is asserted that the “anchor stones” are not really anchor stones,
but that they were made by Armenians, etc. It is claimed that there is
evidence that these once had other inscriptions on them beside the
crosses, and that these pagan inscriptions were removed at a later date
and replaced by Christian crosses. They also claim these are again,
basalt.
“This is no mere conjecture, as those who have examined these stelae
report that there is evidence of an earlier defacement.” (p. 34)
MNW:The most interesting thing about this report is that they
mention numerous times people and scientists who have “examined”
this and that, but no names are ever given. Not too many people have
actually seen them. Many of them, 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 close-up 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 l988, 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
RochesterNY who sent us complete information on the procedure. We
purchased a special light for viewing the stones with the ultraviolet
sensitive liquid on the stones. This procedure is used, for example, by
Egyptologists who are checking for earlier inscriptions on ancient
Egyptian monuments. The liquid seeps into microscopic cracks, which
are revealed when the ultraviolet light is shone on the surface.
Now, again, 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 videoed them. There is positively no evidence
for any earlier defacement on any of these stones that any of us have
seen.
RW: Near Kazan, I recently found two more anchor stones, which
are just now beginning to surface as the mud erodes - and they have no
crosses or other carvings on them. But they do have the same unusual
holes at the top. These were apparently covered by mud soon after the
Flood.
MNW: We will give you a photograph of one of the anchor stones
Ron found which is still partially buried in the earth and is just now
becoming visible [Discoveries: Questions Answered, page 78]. 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 have the hole at the top. This disproves the old theory that the
Armenians made them and carved the inscriptions on them at the time
they made them.
JG: It is claimed that Soviet Armenia is loaded with stones like
this, with holes in them.
RW: Those who say that can not have been to Soviet Armenia. Levon
Azarian has made a lifetime study of the stone Khatchkars of Soviet
Armenia. Not one has ever been found with a hole pierced through its
top. And David Fasold will agree with that.[David Fasold, The Discovery of
Noah’s Ark, pages 167-168]
But marine archaeologists are plucking anchor stones of the same type
as these near the Ark site from ancient harbours and shipwrecks. Tell
them that what they’re finding is Armenian tombstones!
MNW: The writer of this article and his cohorts must have made an
awful lot of enquiries until they could find someone who would
provide them with a story that these anchors are common. So far, we
have not been able to find any record of anything like them anywhere
else. And the Turks ought to know! The crosses carved on them are of
2 styles - Byzantine and Crusader. This shows that these people
identified the stones with holes in them with 8 people. The upright
stone in the village of Kazan has more than 8 crosses on it. Close
examination of these do show that many of these were put on at a later
date for the algae is not growing on these later crosses as it does in the
original crosses.
The author beside one of the drogue stones
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.
JG: It’s claimed that the holes were cut in the top to drag the stones to
their present location. So I have heard one person say.
RW: Well, Jonathan, let me say that, for a start, they’re far too
heavy to have been carried up to the mountain peaks they were found
resting on. The location and size of the holes are such that out of water
the holes would break right off under the weight of the stones. By the
very location of the hole it can be seen that it was to be supported by a
medium heavier than air. Only in the buoyancy of water could they be
held by ropes.
Now, my friend, notice this. The holes have a larger inner diameter
than outer. It appears they threaded a knotted rope or cable in through
the 7 inch hole toward the 5 inch aperture. This would leave the knot
in the 9 inch interior space. It could not come out through the 5 inch
diameter, so it would catch in there. Then, in the water, the knot would
swell and hold tight, thus preventing chafing. Pretty clever, if you ask
me.
JG: Do you believe the stones today lie near the same spot as when
they were released from the Ark?
RW: That appears to be so. The Ark’s entry into this area is clearly
defined by the positions of the stones. As the Ark came progressively
into shallower water, it is probable that these stones were
progressively “lost” on purpose. Apparently as the Ark drifted, the
first two anchors snagged on two submerged peaks, where, each in
turn, they were cut loose and lie today, a short distance apart. Further
east, in a gentle arc to the south, as the boat made a direct line through
these mountains, toward its final resting place, more anchors were cut
loose. Kazan, the village where five of these are located, is in a direct
line with the twin peaks where the first two dropped. Two more are
buried in this direct line. Then about eight miles further, about a
quarter mile below the boat, lies the tenth one.


BALLAST: NOT SLAG, BUT
MANGANESE NODULES?
JG: The claim is made that the manganese samples have never
been examined by thin section:
“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.”( p. 33)
MNW:In fact this certainly has been done. We have in our possession
photos and lab analyses which John Baumgardner had done at Los
Alamos of numerous samples. One of these samples was of the ballast
material. In his own handwriting, Dr. Baumgardner wrote on the
report:
“tailing of aluminum aloid production” and signed it “John
Baumgardner, Los Alamos.” He sent these reports to Ron and we have
them on file. [See Discoveries:Questions Answered, pages 109-110]. The writing is
faint on the copy I have attached to this response, but can be made out
on our original.
JG: John Morris, your opponent who has sought the Ark
somewhere else, suggests that what you call ballast here could well be
manganese nodules, such as are found on the floor of the Pacific
Ocean.
MNW: This can be easily disproved. First of all, these aren’t on the
Pacific floor! In one of our analyses, we have an 84% manganese
content and in another, 87%. From the Encyclopaedia Brittanica (1985
edition, art. “Oceans and Sea”, p.503) you can see that manganese
nodules are normally about 35% manganese, with high concentrations
being 50%. Also, these found on the ocean floor contain significant
amounts of copper (2.5%). Our sample contains less than .03% copper.
JG: He says this boat-shape is mud that has welled up from an old
sea.
RW: If that was so, the manganese nodules would average slightly
less than 2 inches in diameter. But this site is so very different. The
most significant evidence is the size. Our sample is 7 inches by 10
inches with a depth of about 2½ to 3 inches.



WHY NOT IN THE HEADLINES?
JG: Tell me, Ron, why hasn’t Noah’s Ark made the headlines?
RW: First of all, it is our policy to work quietly and not seek
publicity until we are completely finished. We believe firmly that this
is in God’s timing and only He will dictate when it will be brought to
the attention of the world. The Turkish government did make a major
announcement back in 1987, when they dedicated the site as a national
park, and later when it was upgraded to the status of national treasure,
and it has been in the news at various times.
We have no plans to seek publicity until we are completely finished
with our research.
The bottom line is this: we do not know at what point the Lord will
say, “That is enough - the work is finished.” There is enough evidence
for anyone who really wants the truth. But we hope to be able to
excavate enough of the remains to convince even the most hardened
skeptic. Although we have plans to do more, it’s ultimately in His
hands.


A FINAL QUESTION
JG: Finally, Ron, what do you say about those who don’t agree
with you? Those who say they are more qualified?
RW: There are over 500 people who have a sheepskin scroll with a
Ph.D. on it who got their doctorate degree by writing about the
Piltdown Man!


[Piltdown Man, if you didn’t know, was for forty years hailed by the
scientific world as a missing link - a “proof’ of evolution. Then it was
discovered to be a hoax!]

As this book neared completion, I received a letter from Dr. Carl
Wieland, Managing Director of Creation Science Foundation, which
published Creation Ex Nihilo. I accepted his assurance that his
organisation was “not involved in any conspiracy to ‘silence’ this
particular site.” And I was able to assure Carl, in turn, that this present
work, The Ark Conspiracy, was not titled with reference to his
organisation’s article. The reader will have already noted in what
context the term “conspiracy” has been used (see Chapter 9).
Carl told me that he did “not believe that it is likely anymore that the
Ark will be found on Mt. Ararat itself. Most of the reasons for the
searching there have been the eyewitness reports only.” He expressed
an interest “to print an update if further information is forthcoming,
regardless of which way it tends.”
Meanwhile, a massive amount of wrong information had been
circulated. The writer of the article didn’t even give the names of socalled
“scientists” who claimed to have examined the anchor stones
and built molecular frequency generators.
It appeared that much of the mis-information could be sourced to a
certain John Morris.


THE DECEIT GOES ON
Soon after this a programme was aired on American television pushing
the claim that the Ark had been sighted on Mount Ararat proper. The
Wyatts decided to release a report on the matter. It read as follows:
EVIDENCE OF DECEIT ON RECENT
CBS SHOW ON NOAH’S ARK
With all the lies that are being told about our work, we have decided
that it is necessary to show how unreliable the information is that was
given in the recent “Amazing Discovery of Noah’s Ark” which was
shown on CBS on Feb. 20, 1993.
Near the end of the program, a man from Holland spoke of how he
flew with Jim Irwin around Mt.Ararat and they saw an object that
they knew was Noah’s Ark. They showed a photograph. Earlier, the
narrator told how Jim Irwin was sure he had found the Ark but kept it
quiet until he was able to mount a ground expedition to the site of the
photograph. Sadly, they explained, Jim died before he could
accomplish this.
Well, in the book Noah’s Ark and the Lost World by John D. Morris,
copyrighted 1988, on page 31 you will see this same exact photograph
that was shown as having been photographed by Jim Irwin’s
expedition. The caption below this photograph reads:
“...A friend of mine took this photo by holding his camera out over the
ledge of a cliff. It was too dangerous for him to reach the edge and
look over, but he was able to take several pictures of the hidden
canyon below. When the film was developed and the pictures
examined, a strange object that looks like Noah’s Ark could be seen,
just as these enlargements show. But because he didn’t actually see the
object himself, we don’t know for certain what it really is. In fact, the
more we study the picture, the less we believe it to be the Ark - but we
certainly plan to go back and take a closer look! We call this picture
the ‘Mystery Photo”’.
The book was published before Jim Irwin’s last flight around the
mountain. Also, Morris claims a friend of his took the photo by
hanging over a ledge.??? They are the very same photograph, but with
two very different stories. The publisher of the book is Master Books,
should you want to see the photo for yourself.



(NOTE By Largo: This is on the same line that Owen Platt is describing the PIPS saga…
…meaning TOTALLY fabricated…)
One thing stood out in this investigation: Ron and Mary Nell Wyatt
were thorough. Ron had been coming back to his site for fifteen years.
Thirty-four visits to date. Twelve years of electronic and mechanical
probing. Repeated mechanical analysis of many different samples.
Samples taken from the structure in the presence of many witnesses. I
discovered that they were going to universities and libraries - visiting
every museum in every country that they could. They were consulting
experts in each field regarding “fact”, but they were not asking anyone
to endorse the fact that “this is Noah’s Ark”.
They believed the general
public were quite able to make their own decisions, given enough fact.


(NOTE By Largo: This is the very same we as PIPSTERS are doing…We Listen To Our Hearts…!!!

The Wyatts now had sixty hours of video footage covering research at
the site.
Throughout all this, I had been carefully assessing both Ron and his
wife. Until I met them, I harboured serious doubts. But I was
determined to know the truth. And I claimed the promise of the Lord
that He would let me know what was of Him and what was not. (John
7:17; 8:32; Prov.l:23)
This Ron Wyatt - this real-life “Indiana Jones” who had got himself
beaten, kidnapped, almost killed a few times - why was he doing it?

There is more to be revealed…

Jonathan Gray
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Well folks….
This for sure makes one think about the current issue in ALL forums….
WHO doesn’t want The PIPS Programme to Succeed…

YOU are the Judge…To REALLY KNOW…listen to your heart…!!!

What did you find..?

Largo