RE: Ron Wyatt Museum

From: glenn morton (
Date: Mon Oct 16 2000 - 01:39:07 EDT

  • Next message: bivalve: "New phyla?"

    Even the young-earth creationists think Wyatt is out on a thin twig: My
    father-in-law sent me this from the OKC paper:

            "Critics, including geologist Andrew Snelling, while writing for Creation
    magazine, points out that Turkish officials have blocked further digs at the
            "Wyatt's purported discoveries have come under harsh scrutiny from other
    creation scientists, including geologists who predicate much of ther studies
    on the scientific findings associated with the flood that prompted Noah's
    biblical voyage."
            "In particular, his assertion that the site held rib timbers and metal
    brackets from the ark brought on the ire of creation scientists, including
    some who accompanied him on visits to the site in 1985.
            "In a letter sent to, an online Christian Publication,
    geophysicist John Baumgardner, a creation scientist working for the Los
    Alamos National Laboratory said in a subsequent visit t the site abut 12 to
    15 miles from Mount Ararat, proved to him that Wyatt's claims were false.
            "The core drilling we performed in 1988 settled the issue as far as I am
    concerned.' Baumgardner wrote. "The site is a natural formation, nothing
    more, produced by a mud slide as mud flowed around a ridge-shaped block of
    basement rock that is still present inside the resulting boat-shaped form."
    George Lang, “Pair Say They’ll Reveal Discoveries,” Daily Oklahoman Jan 22,
    2000, p. 1b ff.

    And here is the letter written by Baumgardner--url when I got it off the web
    is at the end--

    Letter from John Baumgardner

              Regarding the claims of Ron Wyatt

              From: John Baumgardner < >
              Subject: Statement
              Date: Thursday, September 26, 1996 7:13 PM

              September 26, 1996

              Dear Gary,

              You recently requested that I formulate a statement that
    summarizes my conclusions regarding the boat-shaped formation located about
    15 miles south of Mt. Ararat in eastern Turkey which Ron Wyatt and David
    Fasold maintain represent the final resting place of Noah's Ark. Let me
    first reproduce a statement I provided for the CRSnet of the Creation
    Research Society about a year ago in response to a similar request:

              Regarding my position on the Durupinar site, the core drilling we
    performed in 1988 settled the issue as far as I am concerned--the site is a
    natural formation, nothing more, produced by a mud slide as mud flowed
    around a ridge-shaped block of basement rock that is still present inside
    the resulting boat-shaped form. My position on the many other claims and
    questions is accurately represented in the article in the September 1992
    issue of Creation Magazine, Volume 14, Number 4, entitled 'Amazing Ark
    Expose' by Dr. Andrew Snelling that critiqued assertions by Ron Wyatt, David
    Fasold, and others that the site indeed contained remains of the Ark. I
    refer people on the CRSnet who are interested in the controversy to this
    article. The footage of me in the video that has been shown several times on
    U.S. and British television during the last three years reflects my early
    enthusiasm about the possibility of a connection of the site with Noah's
    Ark, but it does not accurately represent my very firm conclusions reached
    after the extensive geophysical investigations we conducted at the site in
    1987 and 1988. I realize this answer is brief, but I hope it is clear I am
    convinced the remains of the Ark must be somewhere else, that such remains
    are emphatically _not_ associated with this boat-shaped formation. The
    central claims Wyatt and Fasold have been making about the site are bogus.

    Let me next reproduce some email I sent to Mr. Jim Pinkoski last May at your
    request. Mr. Pinkoski operates the 'Museum of God's Treasures' at
    Gatlinburg, Tennessee, which features the claimed discoveries of Ron Wyatt.

         Gary Amirault called me this morning and mentioned the email exchange
    he has been having with you concerning the character and veracity of Ron
    Wyatt. He mentioned your remark that the reason I did not support Ron's
    position that the boat-shaped site did indeed contain the remains of Noah's
    ark was concern for my job. Gary suggested I contact you directly and set
    the record straight on this point. My reasons for concluding the site has
    nothing to do with the ark are based on the geophysical surveys my team
    performed in 1987 together with the core drilling we performed in 1988 which
    revealed a massive ridge of inside the site and aligned with the site's long
    axis. This ridge actually outcrops at the surface over about 40% of the
    length of the site. The ridge accounts for the stability of the site
    relative to the surrounding terrain as well as for its distinctive boatlike
    shape. The rock material that comprises the ridge matches that in nearby
    outcrops, especially that in the roadcut above the visitor's center.
    Furthermore, the material Ron claims is petrified wood is nothing but
    igneous rock of basaltic composition. We have analyzed many samples of it
    here at our laboratory, and Ron is aware of these analyses.

    Ron's assertion that I take the position I do because I am afraid I will
    lose my job is a falsehood. I am very bold in my creationist convictions
    here. For example, in February I presented a public lecture entitled
    "Exposing Evolution as Intellectual Fraud" in our community center. This has
    since been aired several times on our local cable television station. I
    just wanted to make you aware of some of these matters. I could share much
    more on a variety of claims that Ron continues to make. I encourage you not
    just to take Ron's word that his claims are honest and true but to make some
    independent checks yourself.

    Mr. Pinkoski shortly thereafter forwarded my email to a friend of his, Joel
    Davenport, who lives in Graysville, Georgia. Mr. Davenport then sent me a
    list of questions, which I answered as follows:

    Dear Joel,

    Let me try to give you some quick answers to your most reasonable questions.

    1. Did you witness evidence of the metal rivets in this "igneous rock?"

    --none whatsoever.

    I have seen pictures of these rivets and wonder, based on what you state
    above, if they're from another site or from that location. Do you have any
    comments on that?

    --I am almost 100% certain that Ron 'planted' them.

    2. As a layman, it sure looks like petrified wood that he found (and I've
    seen a sample of it in Nashville). Is it your contention that Ron Wyatt
    fabricated this evidence or that he brought it from another location?

     --Yes. I have spent weeks at this site and never once saw any sample that
    even remotely resembled petrified wood.

    3. Are the "beams" (or "rib timbers") which I have seen in the video and on
    pictures not actual formations there at the site?

    --The dark, weather-resistant rocks are genuine parts of the formation. They
    are of igneous composition. Calling them "beams" or "rib timbers" is
    something that comes from (Wyatt's) human imagination.

    4. Do you believe that the object at that site, which you yourself have
    tested, is a natural phenomenom, or is it man-made? (I ask you this as an
    expert in your field.)

    --it is the natural product of a geological process (a catastrophic mud

    And if so, were there not metal rivets throughout the object?

    --absolutely not!

    5. Were you misquoted or misrepresented in David Fasold's book which quoted
    you as testing the brackets and finding them at regular intervals throughout
    the formation?

    --One sample we collected in June of 1985 was mostly iron oxide. But this
    was the only sample of this kind ever found there. And there was nothing
    about it to argue that it was not natural, especially given the fact that
    the underlying rock formation is a strip of igenous seafloor.

    6. Was the article in that Fasold quotes in his book just a fabrication of
    David Fasold, or did you really "using a metal detector, Baumgardner has
    been able to confirm the existence of metal at regular intervals.
    Baumgardner says he believes that metal is at the points where these lines
    intersect, giving rise to the speculation metal was used in the
    infrastructure of this craft?"

    --The method was a type of dowsing that David Fasold introduced and I
    naively copied. Upon discerning what it was, I forsook it.

    Gary, I trust these excerpts of email from the last few months will give the
    visitors to your web site a better grasp of who is claiming what, regarding
    this boat-shaped formation. It should be evident that I, as a scientist with
    a Ph.D. in geophysics but also an earnest Christian, am absolutely convinced
    the site contains no remains of Noah's Ark. This conclusion was reached
    after eight trips to the area between 1985 and 1988 and two major
    geophysical investigations during the summers of 1987 and 1988 in
    collaboration with Dr. Salih Bayraktutan, a geologist, at Ataturk University
    in Erzurum, Turkey. In the 1987 effort we surveyed the site with ground
    penetrating radar that involved 72 separate traverses spaced two meters
    apart. We also took 1200 magnetometer readings in a detailed magnetometer
    survey. In addition we made several traverses with an exploration
    seismograph. In the 1988 effort we drilled four core holes and performed
    additional seismograph scans. It was the results of the core drilling that
    revealed, with no room for debate, that a long ridge-shaped block of rock
    lies along the centerline of the site. Mud flowing around this obstacle is
    responsible for the almond, or boat-like shape. The dark colored boulders
    are pieces of the igneous seafloor rocks that happen to underlie the site.
    The glaring absence of human artifacts of the sort implied by the visitation
    of multitudes of pilgrims reported by historians like Josephus is a final
    forceful argument against this being the true resting place of the Ark.

    Also from these excerpts it should be clear that I consider Wyatt's
    misrepresentation of my views as morally wrong and dishonest. But his
    deception of multitudes of Christians who have not had the opportunity to
    check his claims firsthand as I have is an even worse crime. I give you
    permission to use these words of mine to warn people of this snare.


    John Baumgardner
    Los Alamos, New Mexico


    for lots of creation/evolution information

    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: []On
    > Behalf Of William T. Yates
    > Sent: Monday, October 16, 2000 12:45 AM
    > To:
    > Subject: Ron Wyatt Museum
    > Hi--
    > On a mailing list I belong to I saw a recommendation for this site,
    > He cliams to have found Noah's Ark, the Ark
    > of the Covenant, Pharoah's chariots, and more. Needless to say, I am ,
    > shall we say, dubious. Does anyone know anything about this guy?
    > --Bill Yates

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 16 2000 - 01:39:08 EDT