Hong Kong group launches movie about the ‘find’ at Sydney Opera House:
for formal CMI position statement on this date, click here.
Added December 8, 2010
A downloadable video interview with Donald Patton from the Price team gives the
most definitive indications yet to confirm our long-stated view that this was almost
certainly a fraud. The video is available at this link (.WMV file). Some of the statements made are very serious, and CMI will
probably not comment further except on any indications of a genuine Ark find.
Update with pictures 23 November 2010
Since the below was written, much more detail is now available from the group associated
with ark-searcher Dr Randall Price. They have put a detailed 33 page pdf report
on the site of their organisation, World of the Bible. This includes persuasive
documentation, including photographic evidence, alleging a previous history of fraudulent
activity by the guide Parasut, who is the one implicated in these latest hoax allegations.
Price’s report indicates that they have now had testimony from several people
who claim to have worked on manufacturing the wooden structure that is the subject
of the NAMI claim. The pictures below were taken by Price’s team, and the
captions are from information supplied. We report all this without prejudice, and
certainly not without sorrow. For anyone seeking to understand more details of this
whole unfortunate chapter, the full report is not a light read, but is downloadable
from Price’s site worldofthebible.com or directly via
this link.
Not only CMI, but also our missionary friends in Hong Kong, as well as a Bible-believing
Chinese scientist have been seeking to lovingly urge NAMI for some time to take
action to avoid damage to themselves and the Gospel once the serious risk of this
being a fraud became apparent. Price’s team claims, incidentally, to have
found an interesting ‘anomaly’ high on the mountain with ground-penetrating
radar, and which will be further investigated.
We would encourage all such claims to be treated with extreme caution, despite their
obvious interest. The burden of proof in this sort of thing is extraordinarily high,
especially given that Ararat has been an active volcano and that the Bible does
not specify that particular mountain.
[Added 2 December: NAMI has vigorously denied the Price team’s
claims
in a statement downloadable from their website, including denying that the
site is the same (Price apparently states that it has changed in appearance due
to rockfall and glacial movement). NAMI’s document suggests that the Price
team’s claims are motivated by their own appeal for funding. They state inter
alia: “Randall Price has manipulated false and unverified information
to attack and defame members of Noah’s Ark Ministries International. The accusations
made … [are] very serious and give rise to a cause of action in defamation.
Any person or party who participate[s] in spreading such accusations without verification
is also liable for his action, and we reserve the right to institute legal proceedings
in this regard.” Price stands by his and his team’s account, and he
has also been
interviewed for CBN’s Club 700 on this matter.]
Don Patton from the Price team at the entrance to the NAMI site. The construction
has now mostly collapsed, they state, due to having been constructed within an active
(moving) glacier.
A cross-section of wood retrieved by Randall Price’s team from the NAMI site.
It shows the ‘bright, fresh’ interior as opposed to the exterior, which
Price’s sources claim was artificially blackened with heat and ash.
Two additional closeups of the wood, with splintering exposing the fresh interior.
Note the presence of similar marks to the ‘machining-type’ marks we
mentioned in the early writeup.
Update added 29 September 2010: A new turn of events—more detailed hoax
allegations
As the chronological reports below show, in June 2010 already, hearing about the
alleged discovery of Noah’s Ark by explorers from Hong Kong, CMI’s Dr
Carl Wieland travelled to that city to meet with the team in person. Obviously,
we would have loved it to have been ‘the real thing’. We had been invited
to join a conference in Turkey, with a view to developing and excavating the site.
However, upon careful consideration, after the trip to Hong Kong, we took the firm
view in our web report that this was far more likely than not to be a manmade hoax.
(See below for further details).
NAMI continued to uncritically promote the find as Noah’s Ark, despite the
comments of CMI and other fellow evangelicals. They are booked to present the find
at a major forthcoming US Apologetics conference.
Most other creationist organizations have been cautious about the claim, though
without any firm ‘hoax’ conclusion, and we don’t know of any other
firsthand interactions with the team that had seen and photographed the site.
In our report, we mentioned the claims of Ark-searcher and Christian archaeologist
Dr Randall Price, who described rumours of a hoax planted in the area (Dr Price
is Distinguished Research Professor and Executive Director of the Center for Judaic
Studies at Liberty University in Lynchburg,
Virginia). Our conclusion did not depend on those claims (see the earlier report
below). The reason for this updated report is that Dr Price now says that his team
has located and accessed the NAMI site, and states that they had the wood dated
as modern. In addition, he claims to have filmed an interview with a local person
(i.e. Turkish/Kurdish) who describes how he was personally involved in constructing
the wooden structures at the site. This will no doubt create much confusion in Christian
circles.
Regardless of how this particular turn of events pans out, CMI remains as convinced
as ever that this is very likely to be a hoax.
We know this will disappoint many, but we believe that integrity is important, and
particularly so because we are representing Christ as Christians.
Note posted 23 June 2010: The occasional supporter seems to have
formed the impression that our conclusion in the main article (a hoax more probable
than not) indicated the involvement of the Hong Kong team in such a construction.
We therefore reiterate our statement in the earlier article
(below the main one) that the team’s evangelical track record in Hong Kong
is impeccable, and personal impressions gained face-to-face have been consistent
with that. The suggestion concerns them being victims, not perpetrators.
Update added 15 June 2010: After publication of the below, photographs
were sent in from another CMI office of pitsawn timber, also showing parallel marks
which, while not quite like those in the photo, suggest that there may be special
circumstances in which pitsawing could give marks which are at once parallel, equidistant,
and at 90 degrees across the timber for its entire length. I.e. this could not be
excluded as ‘impossible’. Pitsawing would require metal, but not powerful
electric motors. While the article’s author remains of the same overall view,
including that these are in fact rotating plane marks, the article has been modified
to make readers aware that pitsawing is at least a possibility.
Published: 11 June 2010(GMT+10), following Dr Wieland’s meeting with NAMI
representatives in Hong Kong
[Our earlier ‘progressively updated’ commentary
appears below this article, and has been replaced by this one, so that the web link
for that one will be redirected to this one. Any future updates will appear at the
top of this article, not below as before.]
At present, there is considerable confusion mingled with curiosity on the announcement,
by a team from Hong Kong now known as Noah’s Ark Ministries International
(NAMI), of their discovery of wooden constructions under the ice 4,200 m (14,000
feet) up on greater Mt Ararat. Press conferences have been held, involving Turkish
government representatives and academics, which have presented the finds in a way
which indicates the belief of both NAMI and the Turkish officials that this is highly
likely to be the remains of Noah’s Ark.
Photo Noah’s Ark Ministries International
Figure 1. The second from top plank on the left shows evenly spaced
parallel cross-grain markings typical of modern high-speed rotating planing machines—however,
it has been pointed out that pitsaw marks could conceivably mimic the appearance
in the photo (see box in main article)
(Click to enlarge)
A modern-day hoax is far more probable than any other explanation of the site—CW
At the same time, rumours of a staged hoax, giving significant detail, are circulating
strongly. We have given this matter considerable attention over the last two weeks
to see if it was already possible to come to a definitive view ‘on the balance
of probabilities’. The rumours of hoaxing have several inconsistencies within
themselves (which is in any case the nature of rumour, so does not necessarily reflect
on those who have reported the existence of such tales). Despite this, I have come
to believe that a modern-day hoax is far more probable than any other explanation
of the site. What follows is a synopsis of the points relevant to that decision.
There is an apparent inconsistency in the technology from one part of the wooden
construction to the next. One of the beams found was of a finish identical to that
achievable with a stone axe. Contrasting with this, the photo repeated here as Fig.
1 (and which was the second from left in the top row of the photos below in our
original article) shows planks that all have a sophisticated flat finish, with the
surfaces all in line with each other, a finish of the sort requiring metal tools.1 But beyond that, one of the
most telling points is that the second plank from the top in that same photograph
shows the evenly spaced, parallel ‘across-the-grain’ marks typical of
high-speed modern rotating planing/milling machinery. The box
in this article gives more detail.2
However, pitsaw marks as the cause of the markings in the photo cannot be definitively
ruled out.
Locals and others commonly mention the presence of ‘caves’ in the area.
Lining a pre-existing space is obviously easier than excavating frozen ground. Those
with experience of the area indicate that when the surface ice melts later in the
day, there is considerable danger from rocks set rolling before things refreeze
that night. The more substantial surface melting and refreezing that would take
place in summer would seem to make it conceivable for a structure planted in situ
during the summer to rapidly become embedded in and covered with rock and ice, the
latter even filling in gaps that would then give the appearance of having been there
for a very long time.
Photo Noah’s Ark Ministries International
Figure 2. The reconstruction handed out at the first press conference:
the largest of the cavities is the one referred to in the text of this report, and
had not been entered or photographed by NAMI at the date of this report.
The largest ‘room’ shown in the photos at the press conferences (as
in figure 2, an image handed out at the first press conference) was not in fact
entered, sighted or sampled by NAMI, but photographed by locals. The person standing
in it appears to be a later addition for scale. The features it shows seem to be
more typical of a ‘cave’ broken out of basalt layers made by successive
lava flows (Mt Ararat is a volcano). Removing that from the total amount of timber
shown makes a recent construction project, though still impressive, a significantly
less daunting undertaking.
The ‘20 metre beam’ reported was not seen as a complete whole. The length
was an estimate, based on the assumption that the two similar-looking ends protruding
out of the ice represented both ends of one continuous piece. The longest beam where
the actual length was visible was about 5 metres (c. 15 feet), and about 25 cm x
25 cm (10” x 10”) square. It is also easy for the eye to infer that
the wood planking at 90 degrees to the ‘machined’ photo mentioned above
continues beneath the opaque ice, but that was not observed. A construction could
conceivably be done in such a way as to give the impression that it involves a lot
more wood in total than it actually does.
In this rather impoverished region, the constant presence of comparatively well-funded
teams searching for the Ark would have presented an obvious incentive and a strong
motive—an escape from the poverty trap and even worldwide fame and feting
for a while—sufficient to even warrant the risk of working in an area where
falling rocks in summer present a danger. The team was in fact led directly to the
objects by their local guide. That same person (Parasut, shown in several of the
video clips) was also the one telling them not to come during the summer months
because the danger of rockfall was too high. While this could have been his true
motive (and there are undoubtedly substantial rockfall dangers in the area), such
a warning is also consistent with the possibility of his wanting to ensure that
the work could take place with less risk of interruption in those very same summer
months, if he was involved with a hoax, as has been suggested.
A construction could conceivably be done in such a way as to give the impression
that it involves a lot more wood in total than it actually does.
NAMI’s website has indicated their belief that in general it would have been
nigh impossible to keep such a construction project secret in this area. However,
if a hoax has taken place, then the existence of these rumours would be consistent
with precisely that, i.e. it was not in fact kept secret.
The terrain is undoubtedly difficult and dangerous. It has been stated that anyone
taking the wood for such a project up the last 2 kilometres or so would likely not
have been able to utilize any vehicle or animal assistance. But to declare such
a project ‘impossible’ seems difficult, given that months of time are
available, and given the availability of local skill, mountain knowledge, and the
hardiness brought about from living in such a region, even at lower altitudes. And
though resourcefulness and ingenuity would be required for such a hoax, these would
not have to reach superhuman levels. In fact, some things are such that, if looked
back upon after a hoax had been revealed, for instance, would actually suggest an
amateur involvement. For example, the ‘Ark touches’ here and there—the
piece of ‘halter rope’3,
and the little tufts of hay, as if to hint that the spaces had been occupied by
animals not long ago.
Scientific reasons why caution has been a big part of the approach of all major
creation ministries should also be listed, though of course the appropriate onsite
evidence would in principle have been capable of trumping these:
The geology of the region. Ararat is a volcano, with features suggesting
that it did a lot of its erupting in post-Flood times. It’s not just that
this makes the Ark’s survival difficult to imagine, it also means there is
a possibility that at the time of the Flood it was not actually the high mountain
it is today. One of the few things that the ‘Ark’ claim by the late
Ron Wyatt got right (see
Amazing Ark Expose, with details of the many phony accompanying claims of
lab test results, etc) was that the Bible does not in fact insist on Greater Mt
Ararat as the Ark’s landing site—it only specifies a region called ‘the
mountains of Ararat’.
The radiocarbon dates are too young. These have shown great variation,
with different results obtained even for the same specimens from different labs.
‘Ages’ ranged from just a handful of years to several hundred years
for smaller samples, to 4800 years for a larger sample. But as anyone familiar with
the chapter on radiocarbon dating from the Creation Answers Book (available as a
.pdf on this site) would know, timber from the pre-Flood world, with
its different C14/C12 ratio to today’s, would be expected to give an ‘age’
of tens of thousands of years. This is what one consistently sees with
radiocarbon dating of coal and oil—and even
fossil wood in Flood-deposited sandstone.4
Given that the evidence already available points so strongly to a modern-day hoax,
we do not propose to continue detailed ongoing commentary about this matter, unless
some further very definitive and important pieces of information, e.g. how the likely
hoax was perpetrated and/or by whom, were to come to light. The publicity given
to this matter to date would seem to ensure that it will be excavated further at
some point (unless a hoax were to be exposed in some other way in the interim, e.g.
a confession with video showing the construction). Supporters of creation outreach
will already, I think, be motivated to pray earnestly for and about this whole scenario,
including for NAMI.
Wood planing with a rotating cutting head
Marks on wood that are straight, cross-grain, parallel and equally spaced are the
giveaway signature of an industrial type planer that has a rotating cutting head
with straight cutting blades.
The machine has a round cutting head with a number of equally-spaced cutting tips
or blades on the circumference of the head (normally between 2 and 5). Most industrial
machines have a method of feeding the wood through the machine at a constant speed.
The cut is in effect a sine wave—see diagram below. The frequency of this
wave (i.e. the spacing between the marks) depends on the speed of the cutting head,
the speed of the work piece and also the number of blades on the cutting head.
The photo above (click to enlarge) shows a piece of wood with the same marks.
(The reader’s attention is nonetheless drawn to the Update of 15 June 2010,
above the main article, concerning the possibility of pitsawing marks.)
Wooden structure high on Ararat announced to the world
[Updates at bottom of page: Latest 4 June 2010]
On Sunday 25 April 2010, a press conference was held in Hong Kong at 11 am local
time. A local Christian organization, The Media Evangelism Ltd, announced that they
had accessed and filmed an extremely interesting item 4,200 metres (14,000 ft) up
on Ararat in an extremely dangerous and hard-to-access area. TMEL apparently has
an evangelistic display in the large concrete full-size Ark replica on the way to
the airport.
Buried in ice and rock, (well above the treeline) they were able to tunnel down
and enter and film about seven accessible rooms (there were more) constructed out
of what clearly appeared to be wood, including small doorways, a shelf, beams with
pegs, and more.
As more information becomes available over the next few days, we should be able
to flesh out some of these details, including more on the history of the find.
We have previously wondered in print how such a structure would survive the many
volcanic eruptions and earthquakes evidenced by the mountain’s geology, and
whether such an obvious source of structural timber and fuel would survive long
after the Flood.
It is still early days and all believers need to be careful not to jump the gun,
i.e. go beyond the evidence and announce it as the Ark for sure. There will obviously
be a lot more work to be done to establish whether this apparently manmade structure
is indeed the remains of Noah’s Ark, or a subsequent construction, perhaps
to commemorate the Ark landing. The discoverers have indicated their desire to work
closely with the major creation organizations to address the obvious questions that
still need to be answered.
Even if this turns out not to be the Ark itself, this find (if genuine) and the
ongoing investigations and interest will focus attention on the reality of the Flood
in world history.
The following are articles responding to various other previous claims about the
remains of the Ark. (Note: they do not refer to this latest claim and are not intended
to reflect on it.)
TMEL have a subsidiary, called Noah’s Ark Ministries International Ltd (NAMI),
which has a website which details some of the claims—http://www.noahsarksearch.net.
[Note: provision of a link does not indicate that the claims are (or are not) being
endorsed or verified at this point.]
Information received indicates that TMEL held a similarly enthusiastic press conference
some two years ago about a claimed Ark find elsewhere on the mountain that apparently
turned out to be of no significance.
We have had a chance to view many still pictures (but not yet been given formal
permission to post) and there is little doubt that these are wooden, manmade structures.
The head of an Ark-searching team looking elsewhere on Ararat sent an email to a
creationist chatroom site which states that TMEL/NAMIL have in his opinion likely
been duped by a clever fraud, involving planted wood. He claims to have accompanied
the Chinese team on one of their several expeditions and implies that TMEL was led
to its discovery site by a local not exactly known for his honesty. He indicates
his view that some of the still photos were from a different site, suggesting that
TMEL was misled into accepting these as of the same structure. He then states that
he expects positive results from his own team’s investigation of an alternative
site.
All of this seems to reinforce the need for caution—in both directions, as
one would expect controversy and denial surrounding a genuine find too. We plan
to keep abreast of significant developments and create further addenda as information
becomes available.
ADDENDUM 2: Posted 6 May 2010
A number of CMI staff have been involved in ongoing discussions over the phone with
reliable folk in Hong Kong we have known for years. These are people who have close
contact with the team announcing the discovery and vouch for their integrity.
Indications at present are that the theory that ‘the Chinese team were victims
of a hoax’ is getting harder to sustain. In particular, we have had direct
assurance that the following pictures posted here below are ones taken directly
by the team at various times at the site (click images to enlarge). Also, the discoverers
have specifically responded on their website to the email by Dr Randall Price.
While unable to comment with certainty yet about items such as the straw and the
cobwebs in some photos, in light of some of the comments circulating, it should
be noted that spiders (and their insect prey) exist at even higher altitudes. There
are many anecdotal accounts of people going up to something like this over the centuries,
in which case straw may be useful for overnight bunking, etc.
Further investigations will likely require, initially, face-to-face inquiries with
eyewitnesses, and hands-on inspection of artefacts/samples in Hong Kong. With the
gracious consent of the discovery team, CMI has expressed that we are more than
willing to cooperate with all relevant players, which will also assist us in being
able to offer reliable commentary to our constituency via this page as it is updated.
If such investigations continue to progressively rule out the ‘planted hoax’
theory, then it would appear that a substantial wooden construction exists under
the ice at this very high altitude on Greater Mt. Ararat, a construction whose nature
is yet to be determined.
Greater Mt. Ararat is a volcano, with much evidence of ancient (hence postFlood)
eruptions. So this could well be a memorial erected to the landing (which could
have been elsewhere in the region, given that the Bible says “the mountains
of Ararat/Urartu” centuries later). If so, it would still be a major archaeological
discovery of great interest to creationists in particular.
In summary, at this time we believe, based on those recent discussions, that the
evidence as it currently presents itself to us warrants more than just a “wait
and see” approach, but a willingness to be involved with the investigation,
ensuring that all competing theories are also fairly dealt with. We’ll keep
you posted with such updates as soon as significant news is available.
This video was posted on YouTube by the Hong Kong based
discoverers (TMEL/NAMI), footage shot by their team and showing some of the spaces
delimited by obvious wood. The coughing is a consequence of the high altitude. The
small hard pellets have been sampled, not yet identified at this date (6 May 2010).
ADDENDUM 3: Posted 28 May 2010
Apparently, some are saying that CMI believes it’s probably the Ark, while
others are saying we think the opposite. A careful reading of our statements to
date should indicate that neither is an accurate representation.
Our aim at this point is to keep supporters briefly informed of really significant
developments, but not overloaded with all the back and forth. Nor to go into the
minutiae of the arguments for and against the various probabilities.
It includes comments by Parasut, the guide who has been named as a key figure by
those proposing possible (or even likely) fraud.
There are also reports circulating of local Kurds talking about wood being taken
up and planted in a cave over a period of years.
Due diligence
With our responsibilities to supporters in mind, we will have a brief face-to-face
meeting in Hong Kong with NAMI leaders in early June. This is not because we have
any reason to distrust the motives of the discoverers, whose evangelical track record
is, according to Hong Kong missionary friends, impeccable. It is because no matter
how logistically difficult a hoax would appear to be, it remains a possibility—history
is replete with instances of intelligent people fooled by motivated tricksters (Jeremiah 17:9).
We have been informed that the meeting will include team members who were on the
mountain and shooting the photos. Our purpose will be to better understand the chain
of evidence to date, more from a forensic point of view than a scientific one. We
want to make sure there weren’t any possible ways in which fraud could have
been perpetrated on NAMI, helping assess the balance of probabilities regarding
fraud, and trying to understand why NAMI believes it can be definitively ruled out.
As believers, we are told to ‘prove all things’ (1 Thess 5:21). That doesn’t mean waiting till the
last excruciating test is completed before even letting people know of woodlined
rooms under the ice high up on Ararat, of course. And in that sense, we understand
NAMI’s announced desire to spread the news as widely as possible, right now,
in the cause of evangelism. But if it were a straight-out hoax, (as opposed to some
other ancient structure, for example) it would mean ‘major egg on the face’
for biblical Christianity. We see trying to definitively rule out hoax as a crucial
issue at this point in time.
ADDENDUM 4: Posted 4 June 2010
At this moment of posting, Dr Carl Wieland is in Hong Kong meeting with members
of NAMI who were on the mountain and took the photos. An email sent out today to
supporters asked for prayer and included the following two paragraphs:
Via contacts in Hong Kong, there has been tentative talk of CMI being invited to
attend a June/July forum (and press conference) in Turkey, along with various scientists
and archeologists from the Turkish government. We respect NAMI’s passion for
the Gospel, which appears to have led them to more or less take a stance in public
that this is the Ark, till proven otherwise (the same stance was taken
in Amsterdam by the Turkish archeology academic). NAMI has provided answers to several
aspects of earlier claims that a detailed hoax had been played on them. Despite
this, however, nothing to date has definitely ruled out a hoax, with some talk now
of wood from very old remote buildings having been hauled up there over many months
and progressively planted in a cave.
We really appreciate this opportunity to spend private time face-to-face in depth,
something very necessary before there could have been any consideration of making
a commitment of personnel time/costs—and before lending the ministry’s
name to the claim, directly or indirectly. We will be seeking detailed answers to
many specifics, with those who were there and took the pictures, etc. We believe
that it is on the basis of such further intensive private enquiry that we can perform
the appropriate ‘due diligence’ on behalf of our supporters. So we are
very grateful to NAMI for granting time for CMI in their busy schedule. We are particularly
grateful because we understand that the hoax allegations are especially sensitive
and painful issues for them.
Carl has already reported that he has just spent a full day observing substantial
numbers of secular people being exposed to very well-presented truths about not
just the Ark and Flood, but about the person and work of the Lord Jesus, in an extremely
well-presented public attraction driven by the efforts of the people behind NAMI.
He said that to him, this spoke volumes for their motivation and passion for the
Gospel.
We anticipate being able to give a more detailed comment about the Ararat claim
after Dr Wieland finishes meeting with the NAMI team in Hong Kong. [See
June 11 update].
An assessment of the likely level of technology in the preFlood
world is possible from looking at the civilizations that sprang up quickly after
the Flood—Egypt, Mesopotamia, etc. Noah would have had a lot of time and incentive
to ensure that preFlood ‘knowhow’ made it into the new world. Genesis
indicates that metalworking was known well before Noah’s day, so it seems
overwhelmingly likely that Noah had metal tools available to him—though not
modern highspeed power tools. Return to text.
Thanks to South African CMI supporter André Lamprecht
for sending us a detailed technical analysis of how a rotating plane makes the precise
sorts of marks noticed in the photo—see box.
Return to text.
If the rope in one photo I saw but do not have access to was
in fact in situ and not from the discoverers. Return to text.
Note that if these specimens were in fact millions of years
old, as they are claimed to be, they should have no 14C left (it would
be undetectable after 100,000 years at the most). In fact, even diamonds over a
billion theoretical years old consistently give radiocarbon ages—see
Diamonds are a creationist’s best friend. Return to text.
Julie I. wrote: “Thank you so much for this site! I am very blessed already. I appreciate you sharing all these helps and resources. Especially the free ones. We are grateful!” Keep the free stuff coming.
