Wyatt's Museum and the shape of Noah's Ark

I did a thread on Wyatt and the ark site a year or so ago. I met Wyatt a couple of years before he died when he did a lecture near me with slide photos of his 17 expeditions to the region as well as the Aqaba crossing where the chariot wheels are. I have read Wyatt's book on his work and have viewed David Fassold's excellent video on the ark site. David Fassold accompanied Wyatt on some of his expeditions but I believe they had a falling out somewhere along the way.As for Baumgartner's reversal on the authenticy of the site, it is my belief that he too, like Wyatt was looking for something fossilized, but fossils don't form on the surface. The ark was not suddenly burried so as to make it petrify or fossilize.It is my understanding that Wyatt was the first to figure out the Aqaba route for the Exodus crossing and to discover the chariot wheels as well as the interesting split rock, the blackened mountain top and other evidences of Mt Sinai being in the Biblical land of Midian which is now Saudi Arabia.I believe scientist Lenart Moller who did the underwater photography for THE EXODUS REVEALED (see my thread on that) video got his cue for checking out this site from what he had heard from Wyatt's work. It appears from the video that Mollar, a Swedish scientist from Stockholm
University operated from a secularist position and just went in to photograph what he had heard about so the viewer of the evidence could decide for themselves.Now, I offered the above to say that Wyatt is no kook. No, he was not a bonafide scientist, but part time archeologist. He didn't need to get a degree to find stuff, but the will and energy to study, travel, dig and explore. He has more evidence, imo, for his claims than Darwin ever had, but because his support the Bible, he's the kook and Darwin's the one secularists listen to.I am convinced, after delving into this quite extensively for several years that Wyatt's site is not a petrified fossilized ark, but that it is the impression the large craft left in the landscape as it deteriorated and eventually rotted away. It is the exact Biblical length of the Biblical ark, given that Moses would have used Egyption figures since he was raised and taught in Egypt. Someone said it's too wide. That's a no brainer. It should be too wide to be authentic, because as it deteriorated the sides of the ship would most certainly splay out making the impression wider but the ends would not splay so they should be fairly accurate. I am convinced in my own mind that the stones are balast stones for the ark. The fact that one has old inscriptions of 8 people and a boat carved in likely by locals a long time ago says something. Some of Wyatt's approach was to interview the local herdsmen and others to hear the legends handed down over the centuries to them and they tended to believe there was a flood and this was where the boat landed.I exchanged some correspondence with John Morris at ICR several years ago about this and he rejects Wyatts claims both for the ark site and for the Exodus crossing at Aqaba. I was not satisfied at all with his arguments against Wyatt. For one thing, Henry Morris, John's dad and founder of ICR has made several expeditions up the big Mt Aarat and still believes it's suppose to have landed up there. That's nuts, imo, because of the rough steep terrain and so forth. Morris and ICR would have to retool all their books and data in order to go with Wyatt. Things like cows, horses, etc would not be able to get off way up there and survive the descent. The landing would need to be where they could be with the ship until they got things built and so forth.Yes, Wyatt has claimed to have found so much, but he did his homework on where things should be found and went after them. As for the blood on the Ark Of The Covenant mercy seat, I dono. He claims the ark was found directly below where Jesus would'v been crucified and Israel is keeping the wraps on it. I dono. God knows. I do believe the ark has to be somwhere and to have hidden it in an obscure cave makes sense. It seems to me though, that by now all the caves would've been discovered. Wyatt claims that God led him to the hidden cave. Maybe, maybe not. Again, I don't know and neither does anyone else I guess. I'm not saying Wyatt was honest or not because I just don't know, but I do know what I've seen that I do believe concerning his work.{NOTE from Adminnemooseus: My best guess is that the topic Buz mentions in paragraph 1, is Noah's Flood Came Down. It's Going Back up!!. It went 247 messages, and is now closed.}[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 04-22-2004]

1. It makes more sense that they used it for home, storage and shelter until rebuilding done.2. Likely they built from logs, stone, mud brick, etc.3. I believe the whole ark was coated with pitch for sealing as God instructed which would make it very hard to dismantle and unsuitable for reuse.

You're underestimating the intelligence and ingenuity of the pre-flood folks, Jon. They had brass and iron workers and artificers according to the account.1. According to the length of time the flood lasted and considering that the ark landed not all that distant from where it started it appears that the weather was not stormy.
2. After the rain subsided there would have been no rain or storms during the evaporation because the atmospheric water had all fell to the earth and part was now to evaporate back up.
3. There is indication in scriptures that the flood had something to do with the lowering of the ocean floors and the rising of the mountains.I'm saying the above to say that the ark would not have endured the storms and the high waves modern ocean vessels encounter and thus would not be so apt to leak if well sealed by the pitch.

Good post, Whatever. I contended with a similar argument about a year ago and got heck for it. I wonder what the scientifically calculated difference between a tree and the Mt St Helens sediment that it was burried in would be using the same method used in measuring the age of a petrified tree assuming the St Helens sediment was unknown??

Raz, I don't think you would consider the possibility of Pharoah's 600 chariots being scattered in the Gulf of Aqaba all the way across from the Sinai Peninsula to Saudi Arabia to be poppycock if you could see the actual photography of them in the video, THE EXODUS REVEALED. There's even one wheel without corral encrustation which is gold, silver and lead overlaid. The metal prevented the coral to encrust that one.By the same token, nobody knows how the ark was designed to do the job it did, how the animals survived, and how it all came about, but like the parting of the gulf waters, it most likely happened.

I already have a thread going on them, THE EXODUS REVEALED VIDEO. Note how I used the reference to them before charging that they're off topic, i.e. "by the same token." My point was that the supernatural has been established by them and by that same token, the credibility of the ark story is enhanced.

I don't believe this question was addressed. Please correct if I'm mistaken. My point in this is to possibly lend support to Whatever's arguments. [This message has been edited by buzsaw, 04-25-2004]

---

The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buz

Do you mean Wyatt's ark design or Wyatt's archeological ark site impression?

Thanks for taking the time to explain, Jon. Someone gave the scientific data for the calculated age of Wyatt's site, but I forgot where.

It does say something about how old man, the animals and man made things are so the fossils of these would have a Biblical time frame..

---

The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buz

Hi TR and a hearty welcome to EvC. I met Wyatt a number of years ago and heard him lecture. I have his ark book and in it if I remember correctly he says that likely Moses, being Egyptian educated, used Egyptian measurements rather than Hebrew. According to him, they are different and the Egyptian length comes out right, but the sides would be splayed out from deterioriation, showing wider than would be when the craft were intact.I believe his site is the real thing, but likely there would be little if any petrification, the form being more of an impression in the area caused by the rotted craft being so massive.