"For by Thy Words Thou Shalt Be Justified,
and By Thy Words Thou Shalt Be Condemned"
by Mary Nell Wyatt
(First published in newsletter # 11 in 1995)
There have been those who have been critical of Ron's discoveries. Honest criticism (when informed of the
evidences) and personal opinion are the right of every individual. However, untruths and "half-truths" told by those
who dispute the validity of the discoveries MUST be countered with the real and "whole" truth. Why? Because we
believe that God has revealed these things for a purpose- HIS purpose, and that purpose is to vindicate His Word
and His Truth. We have seen many people's lives changed after seeing these evidences, and we cannot allow others
to speak words of deceit against them without making the truth available.
Recently a book came out called "The
Incredible Discovery of Noah's Ark" by Sellier and Balsiger of "Sun International"- the same people who produced
the documentary of the same name which aired on CBS in Feb. 1993. It is full of twisted tales and untruths clearly
designed to try to discredit the real Noah's Ark. And I am sorry to have to present just a few evidences to show how
completely unreliable this book is.
In 1992, we received numerous calls from Mr. Balsiger's office requesting the use of some of our photos and
video in a "documentary" they were making on Noah's Ark. We told them we were not interested. In this
"documentary", they featured all of the usual eye-witness "ark stories", none of which was backed-up by a single
piece of hard evidence, except for one- the story of "George Jammal". I will now quote from TIME MAGAZINE, July
5, 1993, page 51, under title, "Phony Arkaeology" in one of many news reports about this documentary:
of wood is so precious- and a gift from God.' These moving words were spoken reverently by George Jammal as he
displayed the relic that he said had come from Noah's ark.... What the network didn't know- and didn't bother to
find out- was that Jammal was a hoaxer and that large segments of its program were based on blatant and
ludicrous pseudo science.... In fact, Jammal... has never been on Mount Ararat. ....[Jammal's] supposed venerable
chunk of "ark" wood is a piece of contemporary pine Jammal soaked in juices and baked in the oven of his Long
Beach, California, home.... But Jammal's tall tale was not the only misleading part of the special. Sun filled the
two hours with a mixture of fact, conjecture, fantasy and arrant nonsense, while offering no clues as to which was
which.... ...Larue [Gerald Larue, a professor emeritus of biblical history and archaeology at the University of
Southern California] had been interviewed for an earlier Sun International production, and, after seeing that
show, felt he had been set up as a straw man. It inspired him to coach George Jammal, an acquaintance, to
perpetrate the hoax, intended to expose the shoddy research of Sun International... CBS defended it's role. `When
we bought the special,' says a spokeswoman, `it was as an entertainment special, not a documentary.'..."
All through this book can be seen the same stories, (with Jammal's left out)- every kind of "word of mouth"
claim is dramatically presented without tangible evidence. Then, in chapter 13 the tone changes from one of objectivity
to disdain when speaking of Ron:
"The claims of self-proclaimed biblical archaeologist Ron Wyatt are nothing
short of astonishing...."
They then list Ron's discoveries, the last of which reads-
"Noah's wife's grave. He claims
he dug her up and found $75 million worth of gold in her grave-unfortunately later stolen by another."
NEVER claimed he dug up this grave. See page 23 of his book, "Discovered: Noah's Ark". These authors quote from
Ron's book (their footnote on p. 293) which shows that they had the true facts but chose instead to make this
This book, while presenting all the theories about Noah's Ark which are based on no evidence other than
eye-witness claims, (none of which agree with each other), then states about Ron,
"The bottom line seems to be that
no hard evidence exists to prove any of his claims. When contacted during the preparation of this book, he refused
to cooperate by supplying any evidence supporting his claims, whether related to the alleged ark site or any of his
This is simply not true. They never contacted us again after 1992 (when they ONLY asked for pictures
and video of Noah's Ark for use in their documentary, which we refused to provide). They NEVER contacted us
asking for information on ANYTHING ELSE for a book. And it is not true that "he [Ron] refused to cooperate by
supplying any evidence supporting his claims, whether related to the alleged ark site or any of his other finds.
These are simply false claims. No information was ever requested, nor were we even contacted.
They go on to quote other people to refute the "evidence" which they claim Ron didn't have to start with.
They quote John Baumgardner as saying that he doesn't believe in the pattern of metal lines in the site because he
doesn't believe in the technique David Fasold used, which he called "a form of dowsing"- this refers to the molecular
frequency generator. We have no problem with his stating his opinion; however, we want ALL of the facts told.
What they DON"T tell you is that Ron found the metal lines in 1984 using conventional White's metal detectors
AND that John and Ron used conventional metal detectors to verify the readings of the molecular frequency
generator (mfg), (and this can be seen in both David's video, "1985 and 1986 Field Surveys", and our video,
"Discovered- Noah's Ark." If you completely discount the use of the "mfg", the evidence of the metal lines is still
present and verified by the conventional metal detectors.
Then, they quote him talking about the results of some later tests he participated in at the site using radar
and taking core drills specimens, which led him to state:
"I've concluded that it's only a natural formation".
his official report dated November 1987 on radar scans in July of that year, he wrote:
"We conclude that the data
from our geophysical investigation in no way conflict with the proposition that the unusual boat-shaped site near
Mahser village contains the remains of Noah's Ark."
After the core drills done in 1988, in his Aug. 19, 1988 form
letter, he discussed finding "limonite" which is "hydrated oxide of iron" in the core drill specimens taken from the
"...during the months I have worked at the site, I have never seen this bright yellow material [limonite]
anywhere in the fissures or exposures in the mudflow clay [the area around the ark site]. Because earlier
investigations led us to suspect unusual amounts of iron in the site, these occurrences of limonite are of special
interest as they could represent the rusted remains of metallic iron objects."
Furthermore, in this letter, written
AFTER the tests which he claims led him to no longer believe in the site, he writes:
"We still cannot rule out the
scenario that the ark of Noah had landed previously higher on the slope and during the mudslide event was swept
downslope and caught on this ridge-shaped island of basement rock."
AFTER he had completed these tests, he
still maintained that the results did not disprove that the site DID contain the ark.
They again quote him regarding a specimen he took from the site in 85, analyzed and reported was almost
pure iron oxide- he sent the the analysis to Dave Fasold, which showed 60% - 91.84% FE2O3. Now keep in mind that
he stated in his 1988 letter that he saw NO limonite (oxidized iron) OUTSIDE of the site and that it's presence IN THE
SITE was :
"of special interest as they could represent the rusted remains of metallic iron objects".
But now, his
conclusions are all different:
"There's absolutely nothing about this sample that would suggest it has anything to
do with human activity or that it's man-made."
He has a right to his opinion, however the true facts are NOT
presented to the reader. The test results have not changed. The pattern of metal readings is still present whether he
believes the mfg is "dowsing" or not. Iron is found within the site but NOT directly outside of it.
Then, there is the claim that
"Dr. Shockey, ark expeditioner and cultural anthropologist",..."actually
clandestinely tested a chip off the `petrified wood exhibit' Wyatt shows at his speaking engagements.... The lab test
results: `This is a sedimentary rock that has undergone metaporphism. It consisted of three distinct layers."
for the complete story. In July 1992, we saw a video program in which Carl Baugh of Glenrose, Texas, showed a
fossilized human footprint (removed from the Paluxy River bed). The fossilized footprint had been cut into two
sections, showing the inner compression marks. When Ron saw the quality of the cut, he called this man, whom we
did not know, and asked him what facility sectioned his specimen. We had been unable to find a someone we felt
comfortable enough with to allow them to cut a section off of the deck timber. Carl Baugh wouldn't tell Ron where he
had this done, but he agreed to arrange to have our specimen sectioned if we brought it to Glenrose.
So, on July 21,
1992, Ron, Richard Rives, Randy Osborn and I all went to Texas. When we arrived, we found that no arrangements
had been made to cut our deck timber. Carl then told us he had a friend who could cut it, but before we left to do this,
he also said he would be happy to have the specimen tested for us at a "certain university" which did free testing for
him. Since the specimen had already been tested and we knew the results, we were more than happy to allow him to
do this. He then told us that the only stipulation was that we couldn't tell anyone the name of this "university" or
else they would not continue to do free work for him. We all four agreed to keep the "university's" name confidential.
We then went to his friend's garage and I have 2 hours of video of them trying to cut the deck timber with
every kind of saw imaginable, but with no success. Finally, a small ragged section was removed after going through
19 hacksaw blades. Carl agreed to send the specimen to the certain "university", have it tested, and return the
specimen to us. When several months passed and nothing was heard from him, Richard Rives called him. He told
Richard that "they" hadn't been able to determine what the specimen was and were now doing what was called, "the
extra-terrestrial analysis", which he explained was a "test" performed on substances that couldn't be identified with
conventional analyses. He said it was the most "thorough testing" a specimen could undergo.
More time passed.
Richard called again and Carl said the tests were STILL not complete. Then, 6 months after our trip to Texas, we
received a flimsy envelope in the mail. In it was a shattered glass slide and 2 letters- one from Carl Baugh and another
proposing to be a "lab analysis". The slide with the thin-section of our specimen was shattered since it had been
mailed unprotected in a paper envelope. The "analysis" was NOT from the "university" he had claimed he was going
to send it to, but INSTEAD was from "Universal Petrographic, Geologic & Geochemical Consultants, Inc., 48
Rockridge Drive, N.E., Albuquerque, New Mexico, 87122." It was NOT addressed to Carl Baugh but to "Dr. M.D.
Shockey, 7210-B Menaul Blvd., N.E., Albuquerque, New Mexico, 87110". It did NOT state that ANY analysis had
been done but that the specimen had been given to them to be "thin sectioned".
Here is the entire "report"- "Dr.
Shockey, Please be advised that the rock which was GIVEN TO ME FOR THIN SECTIONING APPEARS TO BE a
meta-sediment. That is, a sedimentary rock that has undergone metamorphism. It consisted of three distinct
layers." Signed, "Thomas Servilla, Director". Yet, in this book, the report is claimed to state: "`This IS a
sedimentary rock that has undergone metaporphism.... There's a BIG difference between "IS" and "APPEARS TO
Our complete specimen has never been returned to us by Carl Baugh and we have heard reports of Don
Shockey and Carl Baugh appearing on TV programs displaying a piece of "wood from Noah's Ark", which they claim
is laminated wood. Is this piece of "ark wood" the missing section from our deck timber? And remember that these
men are actively involved in raising money to continue looking for Noah's Ark.
One last comment about this book-
the next to the last photo in the photo section is claimed to have been taken "In 1986" when:
"...Colonel James Irwin
returned to Mount Ararat having obtained a permit to fly a light plane around the mountain. A Dutch National
Television crew headed by Jan Van der Bosch went with Colonel Irwin and shot a documentary. This amazing
photograph was taken of what Dutch National Television believes is a portion of the ark protruding out of the icy
This SAME PHOTOGRAPH is shown on p. 31 of John D. Morris' book, "Noah's Ark and the Lost World", ©
1988. But let's read what HE says about the same photo:
"A friend of mine took this photo by holding his camera
out over the edge of a cliff. It was too dangerous for him to reach the edge and look over, but he was able to take
several pictures of the hidden canyon below. When the film was developed and the pictures examined, a strange
object that looks like Noah's Ark could be seen, just as these enlargements show...."
Friends, those who accept the
"word" of ANYONE, regardless of their "credentials", without seeing THOROUGH documentation WILL BE