Misinformed christian

My response, I then said, You are the one who is kidding me I proved you wrong and even did it with a Christian site. Lol”

“Damien AtHope yes a Google Plus page which I gathered information. I’m not that talented or interested in making a website. But please don’t shoot the messenger. I’m going through all the links which you have provided me with. But please go through mine too. And if you disagree with them, then pinpoint and provide Visual Evidence to debunk them as being a hoax. Damien AtHope I proved you wrong and I even use historians and archaeologists that are atheist, what’s your point? Have you even looked into the links which I provided you with? The Visual Evidence which I showed you wasn’t even mentioned in the links you gave me.” – Challenger

My response, “on your google page you posted misinformation for Biblical Mt. Sinai, so here is the real info to clear this up. “Having conducted more than 30 years of archaeological work on and around Har Karkom—a 2,700-foot ridge in the southern Negev—Emmanuel Anati is convinced that he has found the Biblical Mt. Sinai. At Har Karkom, Anati discovered 1,300 archaeological sites, 40,000 rock engravings and more than 120 rock cult sites. Between 4300 and 2000 B.C.E.—what Anati calls the Bronze Age Complex—Har Karkom was a religious center where the moon-god Sin was apparently worshiped. Rock art depicting ibexes, animals with crescent-shaped horns that may have symbolized the moon, are abundant. Even more intriguing, Anati believes Biblical motifs are represented on some of the rock art. It was Har Karkom, Anati suggests, that the Biblical authors envisioned when they referred to Mt. Sinai. One major obstacle to this conclusion, Shanks notes, is that the religious center at Har Karkom flourished at least 800 years earlier than the traditional date of the Exodus. Emmanuel Anati proposes that the Exodus should be re-dated to the late third or early second millennium—if the Exodus, as described in the Bible, occurred at all. Anati believes the Biblical authors had been inspired by Har Karkom regardless.” Ref

“Damien AtHope, “what is a honest source for truth?” I also gave you scholarly information, and I also gave you visual Evidence of photos and videos ( as well as scientific tested by scientists) as they were recorded on the spot , and you rejected them? Why? You gave 1 link with a few Scholars sharing their own personal opinion I showed you multiple historians, Scholars, archaeologists and scientists ( which make the huge majority) that actually show something ( I have a feeling you’re never look into my links to see what I mean). And the sad part is that you haven’t even tried to debunk any of this stuff I gave you with any Visual Evidence. I’m showing you something specific and you’re trying to argue it with something totally different as you are showing me other stuff. MY MEETING WITH RON WYATT I met Ron Wyatt twice in London in 1996 & 1997 where I had the pleasure to talk with him. I was not a Christian at that time. I was however VERY skeptical concerning Ron’s discoveries – yet intrigued by them. This was because God had given me a great interest in both archaeology and the possibility that Jesus Christ – just may be who he claimed to be – my Lord and my Savior. It all sounded too good to be true. After studying the evidence for his various discoveries very carefully I came to the conclusion they were indeed true. I confessed my faith in Christ soon after and have been a strong believer in the Lord ever since. I was privileged to speak with Ron on a couple of occasions and I remember thinking at the time how much care he took in answering my questions to the best of his ability , taking great care to be as accurate and concise as best he humanly could. I was impressed at how humble and sincere a man he was. He claims no credit what so ever for himself but gives all glory to the Lord. Ron often referred to himself as just a “message boy” for the Lord. I can confirm to you – though his archaeological claims particularly concerning the Ark of the Covenant , may appear to some people to be too amazing to be true , I can promise you now – there is no deceit in this man. Like Thomas who saw the evidence of the pierced hole in the side of Christ and believed – the Lord has shown me the evidence of these discoveries and I now believe and am saved. RON WYATTS CRITICS Many people will criticize Ron for his work. I don’t ‘know why , wheather it be out of professional pride or what – I have even heard some Christians ask “why would God choose a non accredited archaeologist to find these discoveries over an accredited archaeologist, a scientist, affiliated to a University?” But we should remember God sees not as man sees. God chooses his servants according by what is on their heart – not what is on a resume’. Wasn’t King David just a shepherd boy and the least of his fathers household – yet he rose to be a King? Wasn’t Joseph also the least of his fathers household yet he saved not only his own people but Egypt itself from famine? Down through the centuries archaeologists affiliated to Universities and with access to large sums of money have been searching for these biblical sites and all have ended in vain. Now, one man, a devout believer in the word of God, with little financial aid has found not one but all of these sites. Could it be that God is trying to tell us something here. Could God be saying that because it is impossible for just one man to make these discoveries it must therefore be a result of divine intervention for the purpose of drawing our attention to them. What is taking place here is not just the most important archaeological discovery of all time but a supernatural event specifically addressed to people living in these – the last days and God is doing everything he can do get our attention before the time of mans probation closes. Those people that call Ron a liar and a fraudster need to ask themselves a few of very important questions. 1. If Ron was liar how did he obtain a permit to dig from the Israeli Department for antiquities and the Garden Tomb Association when normally only archaeologists accredited to a university are granted permission and even then they are extremely hard to obtain, (unless you have a power working on your behalf not of this earth in which case this would be no problem at all.) 2. If Ron had never dug in the Garden Tomb area how is it we have video evidence of Ron digging in this very place…the garden tomb, and be seen here on You tube. 3. If Ron Wyatt had broken the law by carrying out an unauthorized archaeological dig without a permit to dig from the Israeli department of antiquities then WHY did they allow him and his excavation team, WAR, to continue to return to Jerusalem over the following years and continue digs NUMEROUS TIMES without being arrested or stopped ? 4. Finally, some have said, “I believe Ron’s other discoveries, Noahs Ark, Sodom and Gomorrah, Chariot Wheels on the bottom of the Red Sea and Mt Sinai in Arabia are all true, BUT, when it comes to the Ark of the Covenant…he is a liar !” To these people I would simply say this. WHY would Ron tell the the truth about his other discoveries, but lie about the greatest discovery of them all – the Ark of the Covenant ? Would the God who knows the end from the beginning not know who He could trust and who He couldn’t ? Ron Wyatts Death Bed Confession Just before Ron passed away from cancer in 1999 he gave his death bed confession, which was recorded onto a tape recorder and can be heard here on YouTube. In that death bed confession, Ron , knowing that he would soon be dead, and also knowing that the next time he would be opening his eyes would be to look upon his maker, he was given the opportunity to recant his discoveries. HE DID NOT! In fact Ron , only confirmed every word he had spoken regarding his experiences with the Ark of the Covenant and his encounter with the angels in the Ark chamber to be the truth and pleaded with those that he knew would eventually be listening to the tape to turn to Christ in repentance. A WORD OF WARNING Some Christians have condemned these discoveries, in particular the Ark of the Covenant, and actively try to influence people not to look at them, never the less, the news of these discoveries is spreading all over the world like wild-fire! They do this because the Ark discovery doesn’t fit into their pre-conceived notions of what the King of the Universe can and can’t do. And so , because it contradicts THEIR interpretation of Gods eternal plan for mankind they reject the Ark of the Covenant discovery. After the death of Christ the disciples were overcome by discouragement and bitterly disappointed. Their Master had been rejected, condemned, and crucified. The disciples were lonely and sick at heart believing their cause was now lost. In the minds of the disciples they had imagined Christ would magnify Himself before the Pharisees and the scribes and that all Israel would hail Him as the Messiah and place Him on the throne of David. But the death of Christ contradicted their pre-conceived notions on how the Messiah would obtain victory. It wasn’t until Christ revealed Himself to them on the third day that He opned their minds to the truth of His inevitable death and resurrection. Although He had already revealed this to them before His death their minds were such that they could not understand or comprehend his words. And such as it is with those Christians who oppose the discovery of the Ark of The Covenant and its purpose today. Over a hundred years ago a prophet of the Lord wrote something that I believe has a DIRECT application to Ron Wyatt’s discovery of the Ark of the Covenant. She says: “There is to be in the churches a wonderful manifestation of the power of God, but it will not move upon those who have not humbled themselves before the Lord, and opened the door of their heart by confession and repentance. In the manifestation of that power which lightens the earth with the glory of God, they will see only something which in their blindness they think dangerous, something which will arouse their fears, and they will brace themselves to resist it. BECAUSE THE LORD DOES NOT WORK ACCORDING TO THEIR EXPECTATIONS AND IDEAL, THEY WILL OPPOSE THE WORK.” E.G White, Last Day Events p.209 The prophet Isaiah said, To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them. 8.20 I challenge those who oppose the work of Ron Wyatt to declare where Ron has contradicted the Law of God or the Testimony thereof. Dear brothers and sisters – i consider this profound evidence that confirms the bible narrative, proving the truth of the bible. SO WHAT DOES THIS ALL MEAN ? 1. God wants us to know that His Divine Law has NEVER been abolished – despite what is taught by some people. That while we are under grace and saved by grace – the expression of LOVE for God is manifest in KEEPING ALL THE COMMANDMENTS – including the 4th Commandment. “If you LOVE me, you will keep my commandments.” John 14.15 2. The Tablets of Stone will be revealed to the world when the Sunday law – mark of the beast law is passed. Each “Christian” country will pass these laws prohibiting Sabbath keeping. In its place the apostate Sunday day of worship will be the only day allowed for worship. By the command of the first beast – the Papacy, America – the second beast , also called the Lamb like beast (see revelation 13.11) will be the first to pass these laws. Europe and other western nations will follow suit. 3. The unique chromosome make up of the blood of Christ will be displayed for the world PROVING that Christ , while having an earthly mother – has NO EARTHLY FATHER. 4, The sacrificial system was LITERALLY FULFILLED by Christ when the Roman soldier pierced the side of Christ and His blood ran down the cross , into and down the earthquake crack and dripped on to the Mercy Seat (lid) of the Ark of the Covenant 20 ft below. If you have seen the other Ron Wyatt videos and still refute the evidence presented then there is not much more I can say, for I do consider these discoveries valid. Thank you Jesus for Ron Wyatt. SEE THE EXCAVATION AND TESTIMONY OF RON WYATT HERE >>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxabVxgdVP0 SEE RON WYATTS DEATH BED CONFESSION HERE >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQKCRvzTJyc blessings in the name of Yeshua Ha Mashiach?” – Challenger

My response, again you posted, Ron Wyatt’s Fraud Archaeological Research and even your fellow christains know he is a fraud. So I again ask you “what is a honest source for truth?” and do you have intellectual honesty or blind belief? I will assume you don;t gold intellectual integrity if you do not remove the Ron Wyatt’s Fraud Archaeological Research.

Here something to think about from Tentmaker Ministries:

“Since the magazine “Dew from Mount Hermon” published the article “A Great Christian Scam” exposing the so-called discoveries of Ron Wyatt as nothing more than a great hoax perpetrated upon the Christian community for money and fame, Joel Davenport, the manager of WAR’s Internet site has published an article located at their web site accusing me, Gary Amirault, of not telling the truth. In the article I did not disclose the names of my sources since the article only went to a few hundred subscribers who trusted my reporting. I didn’t feel providing names and addresses was necessary. But since Mr. Davenport’s extremely distorted assessment of the accuracy of “A Great Christian Scam,” and since WAR and associates are continuing to defraud the Christian community by selling videos, books, speaking engagements, trips to Israel, enticing investors in further digs, etc., all based upon discoveries which were never made, I feel it is time to lay out enough evidence to make it perfectly clear to any sane individual that we are dealing here with nothing short of an outright scam. I have telephone interviewed most of the people on WAR’s Noah’s Ark video. Not one single person I spoke with on that video presently believes that Ron Wyatt’s site is Noah’s Ark. Some are outraged that Wyatt is still using film clips which make them look like they are substantiating Wyatt’s claims when, in fact, the opposite is the case. Listed below are some of the individuals who appear on the video. Compare the story WAR continues to sell with the actual words written by the scientists after doing extensive research on the site. They no longer believe it is Noah’s Ark. They believe it is a natural geological formation. As to the so-called discoveries on Ron Wyatt’s video entitled “Presentation of Discoveries,” those interviewed whom Ron Wyatt presented with his “facts” put little or no archaeological value on any of the material. “Fraud” was the word most often used when discussing these so-called discoveries. Read the letters from archaeologists within Ron Wyatt’s own denomination, Seventh Day Adventist, and you will see that even those who would have an interest in substantiating Ron Wyatt’s claims find little or no scientific evidence to support any of these discoveries. As to Ron Wyatt’s organization being non-profit and as such having no investors, I spoke to businessmen and television producers who have invested money into Wyatt Archaeological Research for television rights. There have been many tens of thousands of dollars invested in WAR. To date, none of those who invested this money has seen a shred of scientific evidence substantiating Ron Wyatt’s claims. Where is the report from the blood sample analysis of what Ron claims is the blood of Jesus Christ? Where is the Ark of the Covenant? Which museum is housing the ancient chariot wheels he claimed to have been from the Red Sea Crossing? There is no evidence because the video is a fraud. On the Noah’s Ark video, all the so-called scientific data cannot be duplicated, a clear sign that what was given the labs was false data. (Read John Baumgarten’s and Tom Fenner’s letter) In summary, “A Great Christian Scam” was written to warn the readership of “Dew from Mount Hermon” magazine of Ron Wyatt’s deception. That was as far as I planned to tell the story. Since the story appeared on the Internet, we have received many inquiries from many Christian organizations asking for more information. Since Joel Davenport has chosen to publish a very misleading article written to discredit my article, I felt it necessary to release further documentation of the overwhelming evidence against WAR’s claims of the greatest archaeological discoveries of all time. Read the letters. Write or call some of them. Those professionals who have seen the evidence (or lack thereof) and those who have had dealings with Ron Wyatt will make it plain to anyone that WAR’s discoveries are hoaxes. Since the information on Ron Wyatt was published by us several years ago, Ron Wyatt has died. However, there are other people who have stepped into the shoes of Ron Wyatt and continue to perpetuate this fraud. In 1999, a new book was put out with MUCH more proof Wyatt’s “discoveries” were false. “Holy Relics or Revelation” by Russell R. Standish and Colin D. Standish of the Hartland Institute gives detailed and well-documented proofs that Wyatt’s “discoveries” were bogus. The authors are Seventh-day Adventists, but the Hartland Institute is an independent organization, not affiliated with the Seventh-day Adventist church. For the latest information on Ron Wyatt’s claims, contact Dr. Colin Standish, Hartland Institute, P.O. Box 1, Rapidan, VA. 22733, USA. Phone number for Dr. Colin Standish at Hartland Institute is 540-672-3100. Phone number for Hartland Publications for ordering the book is 1-800-774-3566. We received a review copy of the book. I highly recommend it for those who truly want to get at the truth regarding Ron Wyatt’s claims. The book is VERY WELL documented. This book makes it quite plain that Ron Wyatt never provided evidence for his outlandish discoveries that he said he had in his videos. That Wyatt doctored the videos with manufactured evidence becomes quite plain after reading the book. The easiest way to find the ordering page for the book is to look up the title in a search engine.” Ref

“Damien, you know there’s some people who claimed that he was a fraud, and it is expected, but no one has ever provided with any Visual Evidence to debunk them as being a hoax. And this part is that everything has been videotape!” – Challenger

My response, I don’t know how you trust where you get your information, like the Ron Wyatt’s Fraud or is it that it fits you best. But pay close attention to what I’m about to show you because it will exposure wide open all these deceptions and lies. you keep promoting.

Here is info debunking him as a fraud by Christian Courier Publications:

“Serious Problems: “In this brief review of the Standish brothers’ book, we offer two devastating examples of the hoaxes perpetrated by Ron Wyatt. Actually, the ninety-plus examples, touted by Wyatt and his followers, is a “house of cards” that falls under the weight of its own absurdity! Consider the following two most sensational examples.” Ref

Here is some more info to help you see the truth by Maverick in Archaeology:

“So there are some Ron Wyatt supporters who have commented that I didn’t give supporting evidence to debunk Wyatt’s claim of finding the Ark. My original talk in Lubbock was about the behind the film of Finding Noah & the group of intrepid explorers who climbed Mt. Ararat; not necessarily debunking the Durupinar site specifically. However, my comment regarding the Durupinar site was a logical & factual statement based on the empirical evidence; not one mans’ claims. So, in the interest of fairness, I have included some of Ron’s claims here along with the factual data. If you are a Ron Wyatt fan still supporting his claim of finding the Ark- read on. For those who wanted sources, they are listed at the end of this post. Claim: Metal detector surveys found a regular pattern of ‘hot spots’ which could be joined to reveal a regular pattern of ‘lines’ lengthwise and across the inside of the formation only. Reality: A standard beach combing type metal detector (the type with a disc-shaped detector head on the end of a long pole) indeed found ‘hot spots,’ but these were randomly distributed and not in a regular pattern along lines. Claim: The pattern of ‘iron lines’ that was located by the metal detecting surveys and marked out by plastic tape was duplicated and verified by other subsurface techniques including ground penetrating, or subsurface interface, radar surveys. Reality: This claim is utterly false, yet it has been persistently used to give credence to diagrams purporting to show the internal structure of a boat, namely Noah’s Ark. Metal detector surveys found a regular pattern of ‘hot spots’ which could be joined to reveal a regular pattern of ‘lines’ lengthwise and across the inside of the formation only. These ‘hot spots’ represent iron concentrations and could be traced by the metal detector along these interconnecting lines or ‘iron lines’. A standard beach combing type metal detector (the type with a disc-shaped detector head on the end of a long pole) ‘hot spots’ were indeed found, but these were randomly distributed and not in a regular pattern along lines. Since this type of metal detector can only detect metal objects down to a depth of about 1 foot, these ‘hot spots’ can only represent objects with high metal concentrations buried in the surface mudflow material. Such a description perfectly fits the numerous basalt (a volcanic rock that is everywhere throughout the area) boulders found randomly buried in, and protruding from, the mud. The basalt boulders are often weathered but contain iron oxides that make the instrument respond positively in contrast to the ‘dead’ mud. Furthermore, this instrument did not detect ‘iron lines’ between the ‘hot spots’. That this distribution of ‘hot spots’ was random was confirmed by at least two such metal detector surveys. Geophysicist Tom Fenner says, ‘I was surprised and dismayed to learn that Mr Wyatt was using my name as well as the name of Geophysical Survey Systems Inc. (GSSI) in order to lend credibility to his unsubstantiated claims concerning the so-called “Noah’s Ark site.”’ Fenner goes on to indicate that neither he nor GSSI believes the formation to be manmade. He writes, ‘In 1987 I performed an extensive GPR [ground-penetrating radar] study in an attempt to characterize any shallow subsurface features in the boat-shaped formation at the site… . A great deal of effort was put into repeating the radar measurements acquired in 1986 by Wyatt and Fasold… . After numerous attempts over a period of one and a half days we were unable to duplicate their radar records in any way…. I was never convinced the site was the remains of Noah’s Ark. In fact the more time I spent on the site, the more skeptical I became.’ Claim: In the walls that define the outline of the boat-shape is evidence of a former ship’s ribs, presumably the timbers that formed part of the original keel structure/hull. Reality: These walls are simply hardened mud, containing boulders of the various local rock types. They contain no petrified wood holding in the mud in any way reminiscent of the outer planking of a wooden hulled vessel. Instead of finding ‘walls’, Fenner’s 1987 radar survey indicated the presence of a shallow flat-lying reflector likely to be bedrock underneath the surface mudflow material. On the other hand, speaking of the data from the Wyatt and Fasold survey (which could not be duplicated, anyway) Fenner comments, ‘Their records showed point targets’, not ‘walls’. In other words, no boat structures (for example, ‘bulkheads’ or ‘gunwales’) were found in the survey that was conducted by a professional ground penetrating radar operator. Wyatt even claimed his radar scans showed stairs, which is absolutely unsustainable. Furthermore, closer examination of the photographic ‘evidence’ of a ship’s ribs reveals that erosion gullies cutting into the walls at fairly regular intervals, mainly in one area, have given the appearance at a distance of thick beam structures; however, they are merely the hardened mud left behind between these erosion gullies. As the burden of proof rests with those who claim that these are a ship’s ribs, one would have thought that they would have sampled this material and submitted it for scientific tests. However, there is no indication that it has ever been sampled by Wyatt or Roberts to see what they really are. On the other hand, all the other eye witnesses who have been to the site insist that they only ever saw mud, containing boulders (mudflow debris), forming these walls. Claim: There are trainloads and boatloads of petrified wood out there and it is all in the boat structure. Reality: No trained scientist of the many who have visited the site has ever seen any sign of these ‘trainloads’ of petrified wood. No trained scientist of the many who have visited the site has ever seen any sign of these ‘trainloads’ of petrified wood. Geologist Dr Bayraktutan has collected one or two small fragments of semi-petrified wood which in his opinion have flowed on to the site within the mud from elsewhere. He confirms that none of the regular rock types of the site are petrified wood. Not one of the other scientists (including geologists familiar with petrified wood) has ever once seen any. Both Wyatt and Roberts claim support for the identification of their rock sample by citing Galbraith Laboratories of Tennessee, yet the laboratory assay certificate shows that they only analysed for three elements-calcium, iron and carbon-no basis at all for calling the sample petrified wood! When telephoned, the laboratory was adamant that they were not asked to give an opinion on what the object was and they were unable to do so. Claim: Soil samples from the site indicate the residue of a decayed wooden vessel with sophisticated metals used for bracing Reality: It is true that the samples contained iron, aluminum, titanium and carbon, but such elements are always to be found in soils. Two soil samples were indeed collected by Wyatt in 1979 and the assay results from Galbraith Laboratories were published by Dr William Shea. It is also true that the samples contained iron, aluminum, titanium and carbon, but such elements are always to be found in soils. Indeed, the assay results of these two samples are exactly what one would expect from soil developed from basalt-the iron, aluminum and titanium originally being present in silicate minerals within the basalt and not as exotic metal fittings as proposed by Wyatt. Furthermore, the laboratory assayed only for carbon and did not specify that it was organic carbon, so Wyatt and others are wrong to claim that the carbon in these samples comes from decayed wood. On the contrary, most of the basalt boulders on and near the site (including samples collected by Roberts and submitted for scientific assessment) contain abundant calcite, a very common mineral composed of calcium carbonate; that is, it contains carbon in mineral form-not organic carbon. No soil or rock samples gathered at the site are supportive of Wyatt’s claims. It is certainly true that samples found on the site has returned assays of around 90% iron oxides. One of these samples appeared to be roughly in the shape of a right angle and was initially conjectured to be the remains of an iron bracket. Baumgardner (he and Fasold each still possess half of it) now concedes that there is no evidence that it is a man-made item. The notable discovery of iron oxide (limonite) nodules in the surface mud is entirely consistent with the weathering of iron sulphide (pyrite) nodules and veins (which are found in the rocks of the area) and not in any way with the rusting of metallic fittings, brackets or artefacts. Claim: A rusted metal bracket and other fittings and metal artifacts, including a ‘petrified rivet’ and ‘washer structures,’ have all been located ‘on the site.’ Reality: Results do not show any evidence of exotic metallurgy. There is no evidence of any embedded metallic object. Furthermore, the assays from all three laboratories returned results consistent with the chemical composition of the major local rock type, basalt. The only metals present in any major amount were all reported as present in silicate minerals. In two of the three assays all the so-called ‘exotic’ metals were less than the detection limits, while in the third assay the quantities were totally consistent with a hydrothermally altered basalt. (*There were, of course, minor divergences between results, but this is hardly surprising given that at least one of the laboratories gave their results as semi quantitative only, with a plus or minus factor of 50%!). In other words, the results do not show any evidence of exotic metallurgy. Any proper scientific assessment of this sample must involve a microscope thin section being cut so that the minerals in the sample could be identified and any evidence of metals be subjected to microscopic analyses using an electron microprobe analyses. Such is not possible so long as Wyatt refuses to allow sectioning of the sample and consistently violates proper scientific protocol/procedures for verification.. 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. It appears that the Turkish authorities sent in their own teams of scientists in September 1985 after Wyatt and his team had left the site and the country. Wyatt claims to have gone back to Turkey in October 1985 and to have seen the field notebooks of the archaeologists, read them and interviewed the archaeologists. Thus the claim about these long forked metal rods, etc. is only as reliable as Wyatt himself . Supposed Drogue Stones A number of large rock slabs found across the valley within sight of the boat formation are so-called drogue stones which were used to steer or anchor vessels. Their proximity to the site suggests that they could well have been giant anchor stones used by Noah to steer the Ark and keep it facing the wind. The stones have carefully made holes and these would have been where ropes were attached. Furthermore, some of these rocks have eight crosses carved on them, one being larger than all the others, representing an iconographic depiction of Noah, his wife, his three sons and their wives. Wyatt, Roberts, Fasold and Shea all make much of these large rock slabs, with photographs and drawings. They measure up to three metres high and each weighs several tonnes. Wyatt on his video says these ‘anchor stones are made of a type of granite that is accessible in Northern Michigan’, whereas both Roberts and Shea insist that they were cut from basalt, a volcanic rock of which there are copious amounts in the area (both Greater and Lesser Mount Ararats are volcanoes). Noah would scarcely have used as anchor stones slabs of rock indigenous to the area where the Ark came to rest after the Flood. If we are to believe that these could have been Noah’s anchor stones, then the onus is on Wyatt and his colleagues to prove by scientific means (chemical and isotopic analyses and mineralogical determinations) that these rocks are entirely exotic to this area, which consists of late Flood and post-Flood strata. Now it is claimed that between eight and ten of these stones have been found in an area 10–14 miles (16–22 kilometres) from the boat-shape formation, although one was reportedly found in a gully 100–200 metres up slope from it. One would think that the considerable distance of these claimed anchor stones from the boat-shape itself must diminish somewhat their significance.* (*In any case, one wonders why Noah needed such anchor or drogue stones on and with the Ark. They are certainly not mentioned in the Scriptures, where there is in fact no mention of any kind of steering mechanism given in God’s instructions for the building of the Ark. Indeed, we are told repeatedly that God was in total command of the situation. For example, we are told that God shut Noah in the Ark. Then when he and his family were inside the Ark they were totally at the mercy of God Who was providing for their safety in the Flood Waters.) Wyatt, however, counters by suggesting that as the Ark neared dry land at the end of the Flood, Noah simply cut the ropes leaving the anchor stones behind and allowing the Ark to run aground. This, of course, is mere speculation and implies that Noah had something to do with the destiny and direction of the Ark, contrary to the thrust of the scriptural account. Besides, if these were anchor stones, the holes were carved too near the edges of the rocks. Because of their sheer weight the rock around the holes would have too easily broken off. Indeed, there is no sign of any wear of the rock surface around the top side of these holes, which one would expect if ropes had been tied through them to drag these heavy stones around in the water for up to a year. In any case, there is a far better explanation for these giant stones. To begin with, the number of crosses on them varies from three to 20, the number eight being conveniently overplayed for the purposes of building a connection to Noah and his family. In Wyatt’s book where he has drawings of some of these claimed anchor stones, one of them is shown with 20 crosses. The same stone is shown photographed in the field by Roberts and Shea, in the latter case with Wyatt himself alongside, and again the 20 crosses carved into it are clearly evident. Conclusion The Turkish authorities really began to get interested in this site after the Wyatt team’s August 1985 work, when the team left the site marked out with bright yellow plastic tape in square grids. Evidently, three independent research teams of Turkish scientists were then sent to the site in September 1985. Some digging was done, but no artefacts were found. Two of the teams were from Ankara, and both returned with a negative report. In conclusion, Dr Bayraktutan, a leading member of one of these Turkish investigation teams, 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. Other Claims: Claim: Some pitch has been found (pitch was used to cover the inside and outside of the Ark’s wooden structure) at the site. Reality: No sample containing pitch has been openly produced and submitted for proper scientific analyses. Claim: Rocks found within the formation have a high manganese content and an appearance that suggests that they were probably ‘tailings’/’slag’ from metal smelting/refining production by Noah and family. Reality: 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. Claim: Positively identified animal coprolite (fossilized animal dung), animal hair, and ‘animal antlers’ are all reported from the site and are thus further confirmation that this site contains the remains of Noah’s Ark. Reality: The finding of such animal residues in association with the site is hardly surprising when one considers that animals are likely to have roamed across these Turkish hillsides for thousands of years. Dr William Shea Formerly Professor of Old Testament at Andrews University, Berrien Springs, Michigan, he is now Associate Director of the Biblical Research Institute in Silver Springs, Maryland. He has promoted interest in the site, drawing attention to it in articles published in the Creation Research Society Quarterly, Origins and Archaeology and Biblical Research. He finally visited the site in 1986. While intrigued by the boat-shape, he has no faith in Wyatt’s claims about artefacts from the site, and once received a ‘petrified wood’ sample from Wyatt which turned out to be basalt. He totally dissociates himself from all of Wyatt’s other claimed archaeological finds, and appears not to trust Fasold. He indicates he would be equally happy if the site was confirmed as a natural geological formation, which he concedes is certainly suggested by the evidence. Tom Fenner Geologist/geophysicist/applications engineer with Geophysical Survey Systems, Inc., who originally went to Turkey to do radar scans on the site for Wyatt in 1985, and who is often quoted as concluding from Wyatt and Fasold’s 1986 radar survey that the site is a man-made boat. However, he eventually went to the site with Baumgardner in 1987 to conduct his own full-scale radar survey with equipment he has professionally used in various parts of the world for many years. He says, ‘With the available scientific evidence to date, my opinion is that any statements claiming the authenticity of this site as Noah’s Ark or it being a man-made formation by individuals knowledgeable of these studies is at best wishful thinking and at worst an outright deception.’ Dr John Morris With a Ph.D. in Geological Engineering and Administrative Vice-President of the Institute for Creation Research, San Diego, John has made 13 trips to Turkey in search of the Ark. He has twice visited this Durupinar site and come away convinced that it is not the Ark. His attention understandably has been focused on Greater Mount Ararat because of all the eyewitness testimonies. He has freely given advice and support to other groups, no matter where they wanted to search in the area. Dr Salih Bayraktutan Geologist and Director of the Earthquake Research Centre at Ataturk University, Erzurum, and a member of the Noah’s Ark Commission of Agri Province, he has repeatedly investigated the site since 1985, including geophysical surveys and core drilling in 1987 and 1988 in a joint project with Dr John Baumgardner and others. He has cautiously kept his options open, but has definitely not concluded the formation to be Noah’s Ark. He disputes such claims made by others, suggesting that not only are they are exaggerating, but some have even used false samples. Dr John Baumgardner With a Masters Degree in Electrical Engineering and a Ph.D. in Geophysics from the University of California (L.A.), John works in the Theoretical Fluid Dynamics Research Group at the Los Alamos National Laboratory, New Mexico. John was quite positive about the site after his initial visits there with Wyatt, but after conducting professional geophysical surveys there in 1987 and 1988, and particularly after considering what the core drilling revealed in 1988, he eventually very definitely changed his mind and now is convinced that it is a natural geological formation.” Ref

So again ask, are you a seeker of truth ot just a blind believer with little value in intellectual honesty? Prove to me are you a seeker of truth, not just a blind believer, by removing nonsense such as the Ron Wyatt’s Fraud.

“Damien AtHope you know there’s some people who claimed that he was a fraud, and it is expected, but no one has ever provided with any Visual Evidence to debunk them as being a hoax. And this part is that everything has been videotape!” – Challenger

My response, I don’t know how you trust where you get your information, like the Ron Wyatt’s Fraud or is it that it fits you best. But pay close attention to what I’m about to show you because it will exposure wide open all these deceptions and lies. you keep promoting. Here is info debunking him as a fraud by Christian Courier Publications: Serious Problems: “In this brief review of the Standish brothers’ book, we offer two devastating examples of the hoaxes perpetrated by Ron Wyatt. Actually, the ninety-plus examples, touted by Wyatt and his followers, is a “house of cards” that falls under the weight of its own absurdity! Consider the following two most sensational examples.” Ref

Here is some more info to help you see the truth by Maverick in Archaeology: So there are some Ron Wyatt supporters who have commented that I didn’t give supporting evidence to debunk Wyatt’s claim of finding the Ark. My original talk in Lubbock was about the behind the film of Finding Noah & the group of intrepid explorers who climbed Mt. Ararat; not necessarily debunking the Durupinar site specifically. However, my comment regarding the Durupinar site was a logical & factual statement based on the empirical evidence; not one mans’ claims. So, in the interest of fairness, I have included some of Ron’s claims here along with the factual data. If you are a Ron Wyatt fan still supporting his claim of finding the Ark- read on. For those who wanted sources, they are listed at the end of this post. Claim: Metal detector surveys found a regular pattern of ‘hot spots’ which could be joined to reveal a regular pattern of ‘lines’ lengthwise and across the inside of the formation only. Reality: A standard beach combing type metal detector (the type with a disc-shaped detector head on the end of a long pole) indeed found ‘hot spots,’ but these were randomly distributed and not in a regular pattern along lines. Claim: The pattern of ‘iron lines’ that was located by the metal detecting surveys and marked out by plastic tape was duplicated and verified by other subsurface techniques including ground penetrating, or subsurface interface, radar surveys. Reality: This claim is utterly false, yet it has been persistently used to give credence to diagrams purporting to show the internal structure of a boat, namely Noah’s Ark. Metal detector surveys found a regular pattern of ‘hot spots’ which could be joined to reveal a regular pattern of ‘lines’ lengthwise and across the inside of the formation only. These ‘hot spots’ represent iron concentrations and could be traced by the metal detector along these interconnecting lines or ‘iron lines’. A standard beach combing type metal detector (the type with a disc-shaped detector head on the end of a long pole) ‘hot spots’ were indeed found, but these were randomly distributed and not in a regular pattern along lines. Since this type of metal detector can only detect metal objects down to a depth of about 1 foot, these ‘hot spots’ can only represent objects with high metal concentrations buried in the surface mudflow material. Such a description perfectly fits the numerous basalt (a volcanic rock that is everywhere throughout the area) boulders found randomly buried in, and protruding from, the mud. The basalt boulders are often weathered but contain iron oxides that make the instrument respond positively in contrast to the ‘dead’ mud. Furthermore, this instrument did not detect ‘iron lines’ between the ‘hot spots’. That this distribution of ‘hot spots’ was random was confirmed by at least two such metal detector surveys. Geophysicist Tom Fenner says, ‘I was surprised and dismayed to learn that Mr Wyatt was using my name as well as the name of Geophysical Survey Systems Inc. (GSSI) in order to lend credibility to his unsubstantiated claims concerning the so-called “Noah’s Ark site.”’ Fenner goes on to indicate that neither he nor GSSI believes the formation to be manmade. He writes, ‘In 1987 I performed an extensive GPR [ground-penetrating radar] study in an attempt to characterize any shallow subsurface features in the boat-shaped formation at the site… . A great deal of effort was put into repeating the radar measurements acquired in 1986 by Wyatt and Fasold… . After numerous attempts over a period of one and a half days we were unable to duplicate their radar records in any way…. I was never convinced the site was the remains of Noah’s Ark. In fact the more time I spent on the site, the more skeptical I became.’ Claim: In the walls that define the outline of the boat-shape is evidence of a former ship’s ribs, presumably the timbers that formed part of the original keel structure/hull. Reality: These walls are simply hardened mud, containing boulders of the various local rock types. They contain no petrified wood holding in the mud in any way reminiscent of the outer planking of a wooden hulled vessel. Instead of finding ‘walls’, Fenner’s 1987 radar survey indicated the presence of a shallow flat-lying reflector likely to be bedrock underneath the surface mudflow material. On the other hand, speaking of the data from the Wyatt and Fasold survey (which could not be duplicated, anyway) Fenner comments, ‘Their records showed point targets’, not ‘walls’. In other words, no boat structures (for example, ‘bulkheads’ or ‘gunwales’) were found in the survey that was conducted by a professional ground penetrating radar operator. Wyatt even claimed his radar scans showed stairs, which is absolutely unsustainable. Furthermore, closer examination of the photographic ‘evidence’ of a ship’s ribs reveals that erosion gullies cutting into the walls at fairly regular intervals, mainly in one area, have given the appearance at a distance of thick beam structures; however, they are merely the hardened mud left behind between these erosion gullies. As the burden of proof rests with those who claim that these are a ship’s ribs, one would have thought that they would have sampled this material and submitted it for scientific tests. However, there is no indication that it has ever been sampled by Wyatt or Roberts to see what they really are. On the other hand, all the other eye witnesses who have been to the site insist that they only ever saw mud, containing boulders (mudflow debris), forming these walls. Ref

More info continued on Ron Wyatt’s Fraud : Claim: There are trainloads and boatloads of petrified wood out there and it is all in the boat structure. Reality: No trained scientist of the many who have visited the site has ever seen any sign of these ‘trainloads’ of petrified wood. No trained scientist of the many who have visited the site has ever seen any sign of these ‘trainloads’ of petrified wood. Geologist Dr Bayraktutan has collected one or two small fragments of semi-petrified wood which in his opinion have flowed on to the site within the mud from elsewhere. He confirms that none of the regular rock types of the site are petrified wood. Not one of the other scientists (including geologists familiar with petrified wood) has ever once seen any. Both Wyatt and Roberts claim support for the identification of their rock sample by citing Galbraith Laboratories of Tennessee, yet the laboratory assay certificate shows that they only analysed for three elements-calcium, iron and carbon-no basis at all for calling the sample petrified wood! When telephoned, the laboratory was adamant that they were not asked to give an opinion on what the object was and they were unable to do so. Claim: Soil samples from the site indicate the residue of a decayed wooden vessel with sophisticated metals used for bracing Reality: It is true that the samples contained iron, aluminum, titanium and carbon, but such elements are always to be found in soils. Two soil samples were indeed collected by Wyatt in 1979 and the assay results from Galbraith Laboratories were published by Dr William Shea. It is also true that the samples contained iron, aluminum, titanium and carbon, but such elements are always to be found in soils. Indeed, the assay results of these two samples are exactly what one would expect from soil developed from basalt-the iron, aluminum and titanium originally being present in silicate minerals within the basalt and not as exotic metal fittings as proposed by Wyatt. Furthermore, the laboratory assayed only for carbon and did not specify that it was organic carbon, so Wyatt and others are wrong to claim that the carbon in these samples comes from decayed wood. On the contrary, most of the basalt boulders on and near the site (including samples collected by Roberts and submitted for scientific assessment) contain abundant calcite, a very common mineral composed of calcium carbonate; that is, it contains carbon in mineral form-not organic carbon. No soil or rock samples gathered at the site are supportive of Wyatt’s claims. It is certainly true that samples found on the site has returned assays of around 90% iron oxides. One of these samples appeared to be roughly in the shape of a right angle and was initially conjectured to be the remains of an iron bracket. Baumgardner (he and Fasold each still possess half of it) now concedes that there is no evidence that it is a man-made item. The notable discovery of iron oxide (limonite) nodules in the surface mud is entirely consistent with the weathering of iron sulphide (pyrite) nodules and veins (which are found in the rocks of the area) and not in any way with the rusting of metallic fittings, brackets or artefacts. Claim: A rusted metal bracket and other fittings and metal artifacts, including a ‘petrified rivet’ and ‘washer structures,’ have all been located ‘on the site.’ Reality: Results do not show any evidence of exotic metallurgy. There is no evidence of any embedded metallic object. Furthermore, the assays from all three laboratories returned results consistent with the chemical composition of the major local rock type, basalt. The only metals present in any major amount were all reported as present in silicate minerals. In two of the three assays all the so-called ‘exotic’ metals were less than the detection limits, while in the third assay the quantities were totally consistent with a hydrothermally altered basalt. (*There were, of course, minor divergences between results, but this is hardly surprising given that at least one of the laboratories gave their results as semi quantitative only, with a plus or minus factor of 50%!). In other words, the results do not show any evidence of exotic metallurgy. Any proper scientific assessment of this sample must involve a microscope thin section being cut so that the minerals in the sample could be identified and any evidence of metals be subjected to microscopic analyses using an electron microprobe analyses. Such is not possible so long as Wyatt refuses to allow sectioning of the sample and consistently violates proper scientific protocol/procedures for verification.. 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. It appears that the Turkish authorities sent in their own teams of scientists in September 1985 after Wyatt and his team had left the site and the country. Wyatt claims to have gone back to Turkey in October 1985 and to have seen the field notebooks of the archaeologists, read them and interviewed the archaeologists. Thus the claim about these long forked metal rods, etc. is only as reliable as Wyatt himself . Conclusion The Turkish authorities really began to get interested in this site after the Wyatt team’s August 1985 work, when the team left the site marked out with bright yellow plastic tape in square grids. Evidently, three independent research teams of Turkish scientists were then sent to the site in September 1985. Some digging was done, but no artefacts were found. Two of the teams were from Ankara, and both returned with a negative report. In conclusion, Dr Bayraktutan, a leading member of one of these Turkish investigation teams, 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. Other Claims: Claim: Some pitch has been found (pitch was used to cover the inside and outside of the Ark’s wooden structure) at the site. Reality: No sample containing pitch has been openly produced and submitted for proper scientific analyses. Claim: Rocks found within the formation have a high manganese content and an appearance that suggests that they were probably ‘tailings’/’slag’ from metal smelting/refining production by Noah and family. Reality: 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. Claim: Positively identified animal coprolite (fossilized animal dung), animal hair, and ‘animal antlers’ are all reported from the site and are thus further confirmation that this site contains the remains of Noah’s Ark. Reality: The finding of such animal residues in association with the site is hardly surprising when one considers that animals are likely to have roamed across these Turkish hillsides for thousands of years. Ref

Even more info continued on Ron Wyatt’s Fraud by Answers in Genesis: Ron Wyatt, A nurse anaesthetist from Madison, Tennessee, Ron is a self-styled ‘biblical archaeologist’ who claims to have found virtually every archaeological site of interest to Christians. His alleged ‘finds’ are nothing short of astonishing and include: The true site of the crucifixion The Ark of the Covenant The true Mount Sinai (with a plaque announcing it as such) The site of Korah’s earthquake The true site of the Israelites’ Red Sea crossing, also with a marker ‘built by King Solomon’ as a memorial Chariot wheels from Pharaoh’s drowned army The actual rock Moses struck to release water Noah’s Ark (the site discussed here, for which he has been the prime promoter) Noah’s grave Noah’s house Mrs Noah’s grave (containing a fortune—her gold and jewelry) Moses’ stone tablets containing the Ten Commandments, held together with golden hinges. There are more claims like these. Could Ron Wyatt have found and solved problems that have baffled professional archaeologists for more than a century, or is there another explanation? Ron invariably has an ‘explanation’ of why he can’t direct others to see all this hard evidence for themselves at these sites’. His occasional seemingly convincing ‘documentation’ (including video-tape) repeatedly withers under independent scrutiny and/or conflicts with the on-site eyewitness testimony of several of his co-expeditionaries. [Ed. note: Wyatt died in 2000]. Return to Text David Fasold A former merchant navy officer and reputed to be a marine salvage expert, David Fasold worked with Wyatt and his team in 1985 and 1986, but then parted company. As he says, ‘Today, about the only thing Wyatt and I can agree upon is that these are the Ark’s remains.’ Fasold believes that the Ark was made of reeds held together by cement. He is reported as saying that originally he was a fundamentalist Christian, but has since lost all faith in Christianity. He is now openly hostile to literal belief in the Bible and apparently believes in several ‘floods’. [Ed. note: Fasold died in 1998.] Dr Allen Roberts With an academic background in history and Christian education, Allen Roberts first became interested in the site in 1960, but didn’t visit it until 1990. While attempting to visit the site again in 1991, both he and Wyatt were kidnapped with three others and held for three weeks by Kurdish guerrillas, an event which brought much media attention. An Australian organization called Ark Search formed around Allen to help raise funds for him to go back to Turkey and conduct a full-scale archaeological dig at the site with Wyatt. In the first half of 1992 he conducted a public lecture series around Australia which again drew much media attention. Yet, while obviously sincere, it appears that Allen has taken much of the evidence merely on Wyatt’s say-so, unaware of the results of the 1987–1988 geophysical surveys and core drilling, for example. John Mackay A former school science teacher (and one-time editor of the Creation Ex Nihilo magazine), John has, while disclaiming complete commitment, persistently and widely marketed the Wyatt video, by mail and at his own public meetings. He has negotiated with Ark Search to also market a video of Allen Roberts’ lecture. He is credited by Roberts as having identified a specimen as coprolite (fossilized animal dung), as well as having visually ‘positively identified’ the so-called laminated petrified wood sample as ‘pecky cypress’. John has visited Wyatt, evidently twice, at his home and states that he has been invited to join Wyatt’s next expedition. Trading (with his spouse) as Creation Research Centre he has actively publicized Wyatt’s evidence (e.g. the ‘fossil rivet’) and defended Wyatt’s ‘Ark’ claims in his newsletter. Sevkit Ekinci Governor of the Turkish Province of Agri and reputed to be a friend of Wyatt, he is the Chairman of the provincial Noah’s Ark Commission whose research team was the only group to return a cautious open finding on the site (the two others were negative). He was the one to declare the site a National Park with archaeological significance and who had the visitors’ centre built there. One would think that if he really believed the site contains the remains of Noah’s Ark he would have authorized a dig years ago, but he has a number of times intervened to stop a dig. He and others may not want to run the risk that excavation shows it not to be the Ark, and thus have no further tourist potential. Dr William Shea Formerly Professor of Old Testament at Andrews University, Berrien Springs, Michigan, he is now Associate Director of the Biblical Research Institute in Silver Springs, Maryland. He has promoted interest in the site, drawing attention to it in articles published in the Creation Research Society Quarterly, Origins and Archaeology and Biblical Research. He finally visited the site in 1986. While intrigued by the boat-shape, he has no faith in Wyatt’s claims about artefacts from the site, and once received a ‘petrified wood’ sample from Wyatt which turned out to be basalt. He totally dissociates himself from all of Wyatt’s other claimed archaeological finds, and appears not to trust Fasold. He indicates he would be equally happy if the site was confirmed as a natural geological formation, which he concedes is certainly suggested by the evidence. Return to Text Tom Fenner Geologist/geophysicist/applications engineer with Geophysical Survey Systems, Inc., who originally went to Turkey to do radar scans on the site for Wyatt in 1985, and who is often quoted as concluding from Wyatt and Fasold’s 1986 radar survey that the site is a man-made boat. However, he eventually went to the site with Baumgardner in 1987 to conduct his own full-scale radar survey with equipment he has professionally used in various parts of the world for many years. He says, ‘With the available scientific evidence to date, my opinion is that any statements claiming the authenticity of this site as Noah’s Ark or it being a man-made formation by individuals knowledgeable of these studies is at best wishful thinking and at worst an outright deception.’ Dr John Morris With a Ph.D. in Geological Engineering and Administrative Vice-President of the Institute for Creation Research, San Diego, John has made 13 trips to Turkey in search of the Ark. He has twice visited this Durupinar site and come away convinced that it is not the Ark. His attention understandably has been focused on Greater Mount Ararat because of all the eyewitness testimonies. He has freely given advice and support to other groups, no matter where they wanted to search in the area. Dr Salih Bayraktutan Geologist and Director of the Earthquake Research Centre at Ataturk University, Erzurum, and a member of the Noah’s Ark Commission of Agri Province, he has repeatedly investigated the site since 1985, including geophysical surveys and core drilling in 1987 and 1988 in a joint project with Dr John Baumgardner and others. He has cautiously kept his options open, but has definitely not concluded the formation to be Noah’s Ark. He disputes such claims made by others, suggesting that not only are they are exaggerating, but some have even used false samples. Return to Text Dr John Baumgardner With a Masters Degree in Electrical Engineering and a Ph.D. in Geophysics from the University of California (L.A.), John works in the Theoretical Fluid Dynamics Research Group at the Los Alamos National Laboratory, New Mexico. John was quite positive about the site after his initial visits there with Wyatt, but after conducting professional geophysical surveys there in 1987 and 1988, and particularly after considering what the core drilling revealed in 1988, he eventually very definitely changed his mind and now is convinced that it is a natural geological formation. Ref