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