A DEBATE

THE SITE OF NOAH'S ARK: AT UZENGILI (NISIR)

Copyright 1995 - By Donald W. Patten


CONTENTS

CONTENTS

  • TABLE of FIGURES

    A DEBATE - THE SITE OF NOAH'S ARK: AT UZENGILI (NISIR)

    THE SUSPECTED ARK SITE

  • LENGTH

    WIDTH

    DEPTH

    SHAPE

    AVERAGE WIDTH

  • THE SUSPECTED PLACE OF THE ARK'S CONSTRUCTION

    FASOLD'S "THE ARK OF NOAH"

    THE DOGMA OF GRADUALISM IN GEOLOGY

    II SUBSURFACE IRON LOCI AND THE LINES THEY DEFINE

    PHI AND THE ARK ARTIFACT

  • PHI IN MATHEMATICS

    1. THE LENGTH OF THE ARK ARTIFACT IN INCHES

    2. THE CIRCUMSCRIBED RECTANGLE

    3. THE MAXIMUM WIDTH OF THE ARK ARTIFACT VERSUS ITS AVERAGE WIDTH

    4. THE PROBABLE AVERAGE DEPTH OF NOAH'S ARK VERSUS THE ARTIFACT'S KNOWN AVERAGE WIDTH

    5. THE PLACEMENT OF THE MAXIMUM BEAM

    6. THE LENGTH OF THE MOON POOL COMPARED TO THE LENGTH OF THE ARK ARTIFACT

    7. THE CHALDEAN IKU

    8. THE GOLD STANDARD

  • CONCLUSION

    FOOTNOTES

    Biography

  •  

     

    TABLE of FIGURES

    Figure 1 DEVELOPED DECK AREA OF THE ARK ARTIFACT

    Figure 2 THE ARK OF NOAH - HULL PLAN VIEW AND CENTER OF BUOYANCY

     

    A DEBATE - THE SITE OF NOAH'S ARK: AT UZENGILI (NISIR)

    Uzengili is a small village in extreme Eastern Turkey. It is within shouting distance of the site that was affirmed as containing the remains of Noah's Ark. This site was discovered in March 1985 by David Fasold and Ronald Wyatt. At that time snows still were deep in the region. as soon as Fasold saw the site, he exclaimed that it was a ship wreck.

    Fasold speculated that there had been a pre-flood iron age, from Genesis 4:22, where the Bible discusses the forges of Tubal-Cain. As a former ships officer, he further was persuaded that if iron were available for ships fittings in the time of Noah, such metal fabrication, that hardest available, would have been used.

    With the word getting out, a third person attached himself to the team, John Baumgartner, a mathematician with some geophysical background. So it was that in June 1985, with Wyatt and Baumgartner, Fasold brought a state of the art frequency generator, set it on the wave length for iron, and the team began to search for subsurface of the suspected Ark Artifact site for internal iron loci. F1

    The question was and still is) whether or not, within this suspected Ark Site, there was any deteriorating iron, former iron ships fittings. If this were the Ark formation, the probability is that of the other original materials except metals would have long since deteriorated and degraded into soil. So, in the summer of 1985, Fasold, Wyatt and Baumgartner dragged a subsurface radar antenna over much of the site as well as spot checking with a metal detector.

    THE SUSPECTED ARK SITE

    The Ark site is located at 39 50 min. N. latitude N. and 43 45 min. E. longitude. It is 2 miles north of the Turko-Iranian border. As the crow flies, this site is l0.5 miles southeast of Dogubayazit, and is 18 miles and within a degree or two of due south from the top of Mt. Ararat, the largest volcanic cone on the continent of Asia, elevation, l6,946 ft.

    The elevation of this Ark site averages 6,300 feet above mean sea level. The difference within the artifact, bow to aft, is about a 100 feet. This elevation is several hundred feet below the Ark's original moorage, as is reported in "The Epic of Gilagmesh."

    The location Nisir is cognate with "Nasar", the name of this village for several thousand years. In the 1950's the village's name was changed to Uzengili, which in Kurdish tradition, also has overtones of the Ark story. Thus, if this Uzengili-Nisir site is verified as the Ark Site. geologists will need to explain waters floating a large barge, over 500 feet long, at least 6,600 feet above modern sea level. This is the conundrum, or problem, for 20th century geology, and Collins, one of its professionals.

    LENGTH

    The suspected Ark site is a boat shaped formation. Its length was measured according to stakes which were posted above where subsurface iron loci were indicated. This Artifact's length was carefully measured at 515 feet. Since the Egyptian cubit is 20.6 inches, this length also is 300 Egyptian cubits, which agrees with the Genesis account for vessel length.

    Perhaps of equal import, as shall be demonstrated, is that its length also was measured at 6,180 (modern) English inches. 6,l80 is a "phi" number; phi is an irrational number like pi, 1.6l8... Phi's inverse is .618....

    WIDTH

    This boat-shaped formation was found to be, at maximum beam, 137+ feet wide, or approximately 80 cubits. The Genesis account has the Ark's width at 50 cubits, seemingly in contradiction.

    DEPTH

    No depth measurements could be determined from the Ark Artifact. However marine engineering and naval architecture indicate an average depth of 30 cubits, or 5l+ feet is reasonable. A depth of 30 cubits would agree with the Genesis account.

    SHAPE

    This Artifact is boat-shaped. The Genesisaccount implies a box-like shape. Were Noah's Ark box-shaped, it would have rolled quickly in turbulent waters. Marine engineering requires a safe vessel to be boat-shaped to survive rough water.

    AVERAGE WIDTH

    In June 1991, Samuel Windsor made a personal surveillance trip to the Ark Site with Fasold, Mrs. Windsor and seven others. He saw the metal detector in action, recording metal in the subsurface zone of the Ark Artifact. He saw those subsurface deposits located on the surface with a stake. He saw the stakes in series begin form lines. He was impressed.

    In 1991 Windsor prepared a computer program of the Ark Artifact, and entered the Fasold data of the various lines and line measurements. Next he asked the computer, "What is the average width of the Ark Artifact"? For a marine engineer this is a normal question.

    The computer's response was 1,027 inches, or 85.6 ft., or 49.85 cubits. 49.85 cubits is very close to 50 cubits, which is the width dimension given in Genesis. This means that the Genesis account addresses the Ark's average width; it was boat shaped, and not a box-shaped vessel.

    This means that the Genesis account is a volumetric measurement of a boat-shaped artifact. This is normal in naval architecture. In our age, nobody cites the size of a vessel by length, but rather by tons of displaced water. This, too, is a volumetric measure. Such is the method of measurement for volume for sea-going vessels.

    Geologist Lorence Collins, who has never been to Turkey, much less the Ark Site, has "announced" that the Ark Artifact Site is a "natural rock structure" whereas its subsurface materials happen not to be rock at all.

    Collins hopes that his opinion is valid, because if this is the Ark Site, geology then must explain sudden, vast, high velocity masses of water, floating the Ark some 7,000 feet high above mean sea level, sweeping it suddenly into Inner Asia, from the south. Pre-flood Shuruppak (as is about to be demonstrated) was the Ark's construction location. And with the erratic boulders of India, a parallel case, geology must be able to explain high velocity, high elevation water.

    Shuruppak is 520 miles south and ten degrees east of the Ark Site. Further, the Indian Ocean, containing almost 30,000,000 cubic miles of sea water, was some 1,200 miles directly south. Neither Collins nor any other geologist can explain vast, high velocity waters sweeping South Asia from the Indian Ocean, flowing entirely across the southern part of Asia, and into Inner Asia. If geologists like Collins cannot explain this, therefore, he presumes, it could not have happened. Really?

    THE SUSPECTED PLACE OF THE ARK'S CONSTRUCTION

    The location of the construction of Noah's Ark is known to purveyors of ancient cuneiform tablets found in the Near East during the l9th century. Nine separate flood stories have been found, three in Sumerian, three in Chaldean, and three in Assyrian. The longest of the nine flood stories is in the Epic of Gilgamesh; it is four times as long as is the Genesis account of the Flood. And it was compiled and written by Gilgamesh some 700 to 750 years earlier than was the Genesis account by Moses.

    The pre-flood city of Shuruppak is identified in the Epic of Gilgamesh as the city of residence of Noah (or "Utnapishtim" in Gilgamesh). Gilgamesh indicates this was the geographic place in Mesopotamia where the Ark of Noah was both designed and constructed.

    It is known that many Mesopotamian post-flood cities were rebuilt on top of the pre-flood city. Shuruppak was one of the most important of them. Discover post-flood Shuruppak, and one immediately locates pre-flood Shuruppak.

  • "Shuruppak, -- a city which thou knowest, (and which) is situated [on the bank of the river Euphrates -- That city was already old, and the gods were in its midst. (Now) their heart prompted the great gods [to] bring a deluge." F2
  • As is "Teddy" for Theodore Roosevelt, "Noah" in Genesis may well be the shortened name, in Hebrew, for the Sumerian "Utnapishtim". His shortened name is given in the Egyptian Book of the Dead as "Nu" in its flood account, and another shortened name, "Manu" is used in the Vedic flood story in the Rig Veda of ancient India.

    Pre-flood Shuruppak, and on top of it, post-flood Shuruppak, are located at approximately 31 47 min. No. latitude and 45 35 min. E. longitude. This archaeological site is 125 miles southeast of Baghdad and is also 220 miles north northeast of salt water, the Persian Gulf (and Kuwait).

    Gilgamesh sites pre-flood Shuruppak as being then on the bank of the Euphrates, a detail of more than casual interest. This indicates that pre-flood Shuruppak was a river port, and an entrepot some 200 miles upstream from salt water. River ports normally were commercial centers, and boat-building and repair centers. Shuruppak well may have had some kind of a pre-flood boat-building and repair industry (like Seattle in our age).

    The Uzengili (Nisir) formation is boat-shaped, and resembles the Genesis account in length, depth and average width. The Uzengili-Nisir location is also where, according to Gilgamesh, the Ark was finally moored. This is stated and restated five times in Gilgamesh, probably indicating that mooring the vessel was a very difficult and dangerous endeavor.

    Fifteen and twenty degree grades are normal in these mountains, in which there is one small 10-acre flat bench. On that small bench the village Uzengili-Nasar, the namesake of Mt. Nisir, is located.

  • On Mount Nisir the ship landed.
    Mount Nisir held the ship fast and did not let (it) move. F3
  • Uzengili-Nisir is 520 miles north and slightly west of pre-flood Shuruppak. This village is at an elevation of some 6,600 feet above mean sea level. This indicates that if this is the Ark Site, then the Flood waters were (a) sudden, (b) high velocity, (c) northerly in direction, (d) crested at over 7,000 feet above modern sea level, and (e) came from the general direction of the Indian Ocean to the south.

    The Indian Ocean is our planet's second largest ocean, containing some 23% of the Earth's surface water, almost 30,000,000 cubic miles of salt water. Its average depth is 10,500 feet. It is bordered by Antarctica on the south, West Australia, East Africa and India on the north.

    FASOLD'S "THE ARK OF NOAH"

    In 1988, David Fasold wrote "The Ark of Noah".F4 Therein, he described both this suspected Ark Site, and he gave its measurements, based on flags placed above loci where the frequency generator indicated a bit of iron below within the formation. He also discussed eleven drogue stones, located 5 miles northwest of Dogubayazit, at Kazan, which is some 15 miles from the Ark Site. This drogue stone issue is treated in a separate, but related essay.

    The drogue stones, in Fasold's mind, served just like drogue stones of recent times in boats going up and down the Nile River. Their function, as they drag along in the water behind the boats, is to prevent any capsizing in event the boat is suddenly struck sideways by a surprise wave. The modern term for the drogue stones would be "sea anchors".

    THE DOGMA OF GRADUALISM IN GEOLOGY

    Modern geological dogma does not offer a force, a cause or a scenario that could have relocated Noah's Ark so far, so high and so quickly. The supreme dogma of modern geology is Lyell's "gradualism" (uniformitarianism); it dates to the 1830's. Before that, in early l9th century geology, the two basic explanations for causing forces were Neptunism (by vast amounts of water) and Plutonism (by vast amounts of fiery sub-crustal magma upheavals).

    Lyell substituted "natural forces" such as weathering, and four billion years of it because he assumed Hutton's doctrine, "the present is the key to the past" in Earth history; it isn't.

    Near Eastern flood stories occur nine times in the oldest writing of the Near East, cuneiform on clay tablets. In addition flood accounts occur in Hebrew, Egyptian, Greek, Armenian and Vedic Indian, suggesting a dating of 5,000 years ago or less. There is also a significant flood story in Chinese.

    The Ark Artifact at 6,300 feet, if accepted, throws Lyell's dogma into shambles. Thus the Ark Artifact is an assault the central, sacrosanct dogma of modern geology, Lyell's uniformitarianism, or gradualism. If this site if verified, it throws historical geology into chaos.

    This site is 600+ miles from the closest arm of the Persian Gulf, and it is over 1,200 miles from the open Indian Ocean. Gradualist geologists cannot imagine how Noah's Ark could be floated so high and so far, remain so famous despite their debunking.

    What they cannot imagine, or understand, they consider "impossible". Such is the condition of late 210th century geology, and the thinking of the skeptic, Lorence Collins.

    Lorence G. Collins, Northridge California, a reputable geologist, has written an essay debunking and declaiming this Artifact site as "bogus", "pseudoscience" and as "a natural geological misidentification". This is despite the fact that Collins has never been to the Ark Artifact Site to inspect its details, or to overview the local physical geography and geology. But local on site inspection is the basic method of geology. Nonetheless, his "Bogus 'Noah's Ark'" essay was published in 1996 in the respected Journal of Geoscience Education.F5

    Boldly, Collins presents his guesses, opinions and conclusions as if they were facts. Examples are "Bogus Noah's Ark Site", "has been misidentified", "understandable why early investigators falsely identified it", "supposed walls in the Ark Structure", "supposed iron bracket", etc., etc.

    Collins frequently uses emotion-laden words and phrases intermixed with geological terminology intended to cast doubt, prejudice and rejection on this site without supplying any data. Prejudicial words aside, without data, his analysis has no scientific substance.

    There is a parallel issue to the northerly relocation of Noah's Ark and its drogue stones a vast distance. The erratic boulders of South India also were located a vast distance into North India. The erratic boulders of India, weighing up to 150 tons, have been relocated northerly a distance of 800 to 1,000 miles.F6

    This is farther in distance, but is the identical in direction to the relocation of Noah's Ark from Shuruppak to the Ark Artifact Site. As is mentioned above, Ark's drogue stones (anchor stones), the Indian erratics and high velocity water will be discussed in a second essay in debate with Collins and his material.

    II SUBSURFACE IRON LOCI AND THE LINES THEY DEFINE

    One of three issues is highlighted in this essay. It is (1) the pattern of subsurface iron loci in spots reported by the metal detector and a "frequency generator". The second issue is (2) the "drogue stones" (apparently anchor stones) located outside the village of Kazan, 15 miles to the northwest and the cause of Noah's Flood. The third issue is high velocity waters and tides.F7

    This essay is directed only to the issue of the subsurface iron loci, their flagging, and the lines their flags form. So far it is established that it is a nautical shape, a boat-like pattern, and the external measurements agree with the Genesis account when it is realized that the Genesis width is the average width and one is not dealing with a box-like Artifact. And in 1990 and 1991, Windsor entered Fasold's data into his computer, already rich with marine engineering data.

    In 1985, Fasold, Wyatt and Baumgartner covered about 70% of the Ark artifact site with their ground penetrating radar, metal detection equipment, and frequency generator equipment. Both Fasold (in 1985) and Baumgartner (1986) found over 3,500 individual subsurface iron loci, or spots, which were duly flagged and recorded in logs. Had the entire Ark Site been covered, Fasold estimates there would be a total count of 5,400 discrete iron loci.

    The iron loci are thought to be remains of ancient iron ship fittings. Fasold, formerly a ships officer in the merchant marine, theorized, logically, that Noah would have used the hardest metal available for casting fittings. Fasold was well aware than in Genesis 4, a pre-flood iron age is mentioned. We (Windsor and I) also observed a carbonized (case hardened) iron dagger in the Ataturk Museum, Ankara. It was dated at 2900 B.C.E.

    Samuel Windsor (mech. eng., Wichita St., l959) is co-owner of the firm, Bronson & Windsor, Seattle. This is a busy firm in the Ballard district of Seattle, specializing in marine engineering and naval architecture. Windsor's co-owner, L. E. (Bud) Bronson, has degrees from the U. S. Naval Academy (B.S. l961) and from the school of naval architecture (M. A., Univ. of Mich., 1972). Bronson concurs with Windsor's analysis and conclusions.

    Fasold made his iron loci log data available to Windsor after Windsor confirmed some of the readings himself. As was mentioned, in 1991 Windsor then prepared a program and entered the data of the iron loci on his office computer. He wrote two essays on the topic of Noah's Ark and the Ark Artifact at Uzengili/Nisir.F8, F9

    Collins announces, by avoiding the evidence, that there are no man-made designs or patterns within the Ark Artifact. Nothing could be farther from the truth about this archaeological artifact.

    In his computer analysis, and with his marine engineering background, Windsor made a series of discoveries about the Fasold data of the iron loci. Fasold was astounded. There is no question of collusion between Fasold's 1985 findings and those of Windsor (1991) because in 1985 Fasold perceived only that the loci fell into lines typical of a floating marine artifact.

    Fasold published his data in l988; Windsor did his computer analysis in 1991, one year after his visit to the Ark Site. Neither Fasold or his associates, Wyatt or Baumgartern, could have anticipated in advance what Windsor's computer would reveal concerning the Ark Artifact.

    PHI AND THE ARK ARTIFACT

    "Phi", like "pi", is an irrational number - 1.6180.... Phi is a fascinating irrational number. For instance in numerical patterns, the square of phi is 2.618. The inverse of phi (phi over one) is .618. The inverse of phi squared is .382. Thus the inverse of phi squared plus phi squared equals 3. The inverse of phi squared plus phi equals 2. The inverse of phi squared plus the inverse of phi equals 1.

    PHI IN MATHEMATICS

    In mathematics as in nature, 1.6180339... is a widely noted and widely employed irrational number. Mathematically, phi is 1 + sq. rt. of 5 divided by 2. In nature, the phi ratio results in the spiral of least resistance.

    Another way to approximate phi is the "Fibonacci series". This series is where each new number is the sum of its two predecessors. Phi is approximated by dividing the last number by it preceding number. Examples are:

  • 2 + 3 = 5 which is 1.667... of "3".
    3 + 5 = 8 which is 1.600000 of "5".
    5 + 8 = 13 which is 1.625000 of "8".
    8 + 13 = 21 which is 1.6154... of "13".
    13 + 21 = 34 which is 1.6190... of "21".
    21 + 34 = 55 which is 1.6176... of "34".
  • The longer the series is extended, the more precise becomes phi, 1.6180........

    Fibonacci was an Italian mathematician of the 12th century who published Liber Abci. He was the first European in the modern age to write on Arabian and Indian mathematics.

    Artists are interested in "phi", because the "phi" proportion is the most pleasing proportion for landscape paintings. A rectangle with phi as the width and one as the height is the "golden rectangle", so widely used in paintings.

    In marine biology, "phi" is of interest because the shell of the chambered nautilus spreads out like a phi spiral. Botanists are interested in "phi" because the phi spiral it describes the sequence off branches coming of the trunk of a tree. And the phi spiral is noted in the seed pattern in the sunflower.

    Marine engineers are interested in "phi" because at the coast line, phi describes the curve of incoming breakers. Meteorologists and climatologists are interested in phi because "phi" describes the spiral circulation of air in dust devils, in tornadoes, in typhoons, in hurricanes and in cyclones.

    Naval vessels are designed with "phi" in mind. It relates to minimizing water resistance for oceanic voyages. Phi (1.6180...) happens to be the ratio involving the least friction in nature. Or, put another wa, Nature "loves" phi. But so, apparently, did the designer of the Ark artifact.

    Windsor considers "phi" was a basic relationship in the designing of the Ark. For instance, once the length and the required deck area were determined, it showed Noah how wide to built his vessel and where to locate the Moon Pool.

    The allegation by Collins that the Ark Artifact is a "Common Geologic Structure" is about to be shown as nonsense. All of the phi ratios listed below were found by Windsor in the Ark Artifact from Fasold's data. This rules out any "chance geological formation". It calls into question the scientific scholarship by Collins, who did have the following data, but paid no attention to them.

    Figures 1 and 2 are two of Windsor's several drawings of the Ark Artifact from his computer base. It includes the Artifact's lines, its lineal measurements and its phi proportions.

    1. THE LENGTH OF THE ARK ARTIFACT IN INCHES

    As measured from the iron loci, the length of the Ark artifact that Fasold measured is (a) 6,180 inches in length, or (b) 515 feet, or (c) 300 Egyptian cubits of 20.6 inches each, the cubit's value in ancient Egypt, the homeland of Moses. Genesis 7 states that the length of the Ark of Noah was 300 cubits, this Ark Artifact agrees with Genesis IN LENGTH.

    Note, the length of the Ark in English inches (6,l80), which happens to be "a phi number". Windsor considers the ancient Sumerian inch to have been 1.001 of a modern English inch, and was the basic dimension used in designing both Noah's Ark and the Giza Pyramid in Egypt, also a pre-flood structure.

    In the Giza Pyramid is an objected called the "boss" located in a side wall of the grand gallery of the Great Pyramid. The gallery is the passage down to the "king's chamber". The "boss" is a half round protrusion of polished granite, oriented to the vertical plane, five inches high, 2.5 inches in radius and 1.001 inches thick. This boss seems to have been a standard of lineal measure of the time.

    Smyth wrote a dissertation on the subject a century ago explained the .001" difference. The English inch as it existed before 1700 C.E., and before the metric system was adopted, was .001 longer than is the modern English inch.

    Pi and phi ratios are prominent in the Giza Pyramid, as well as being prominent in the Ark Artifact formation. Thus it is that Windsor finds the length of the Ark Artifact, 6,180 inches (1.001 inches), a phi number, to be most interesting.

    2. THE CIRCUMSCRIBED RECTANGLE

    The circumscribed rectangle is the length of a rectangle, 6,180 inches, the length of the Ark, and having a width of 1,662+ inches. 1,662+ inches was determined as the width of the Ark Artifact at maximum beam. (Fasold's width measurements of the Ark Artifact missed slightly the maximum beam). This circumscribed rectangle measures 10,275,177 sq. inches, or 71,355 sq. ft.

    The "developed deck area" of the Ark Artifact is the water plane of the Ark minus the area of the vessel's Moon Pool in the middle. The Moon Pool was a rectangular hole in the middle of the vessel, area 762,712 sq. inches. This rectangular hole passed completely through the Ark, except it probably was roofed over.

    In the design of oil drilling vessels, there is a hole in the middle of the vessel, used for the drilling equipment. It is called the "Moon Pool". It goes all the way through the vessel. One can dive in it, throw a cup of coffee into it, toss some garbage, etc.

    The Ark had a Moon Pool, which served several purposes. First and foremost, in rough seas, water came up in it while riding a large wave. The Moon Pool softened the stresses of the hanging ends of the vessel in turbulent water. Also, back end of the Moon Pool was the appropriate place to drop the hawsers connected with the drogue stones (like anchor stones). Thirdly, water movement in the Moon Pool assisted in the ventilation of the vessel (and the Ark did need ventilation).

    The area of the circumscribed rectangle, 10,275,163 sq. inches, compared to the developed deck area, 6,350,400 sq. inches. This is as phi, 1.618... is 1.000.. Phi "told" Noah where to place the maximum beam, and where to place the center of the Moon Pool.

     

    Figure 1
    DEVELOPED DECK AREA OF THE ARK ARTIFACT

     

    Figure 2
    THE ARK OF NOAH - HULL PLAN VIEW AND CENTER OF BUOYANCY

     

    3. THE MAXIMUM WIDTH OF THE ARK ARTIFACT VERSUS ITS AVERAGE WIDTH

    Fasold measured the maximum width of the Ark Artifact at 136 feet, 10 inches. But his measurement was not at the exact center, where, using marine techniques, Windsor's computer measured the maximum beam width at 137.3 feet. This is 80.71 Egyptian cubits, or 1,662.6 inches.

    Windsor then "asked" the computer "What is the average width". The computer indicated the average width of Noah's vessel was 49.85 cubits. So it is that the maximum width of the Ark Artifact compares with the average width is phi (1.618...) compares with one. This is the third of the phi relationships, and it indicates design, very intelligent design, nothing less.

    4. THE PROBABLE AVERAGE DEPTH OF NOAH'S ARK VERSUS THE ARTIFACT'S KNOWN AVERAGE WIDTH

    The average width of the Ark Artifact was computed at 49.85 cubits. The probable average depth was about 30 cubits. If the actual average depth were 30.8 cubits, the average width versus the average depth was another phi ratio, the fourth.

    5. THE PLACEMENT OF THE MAXIMUM BEAM

    The maximum beam is the major transverse chord. It was located 3,819 inches from the aft. The length of the Ark, 6,180 inches, was measured and compared to the distance of the transverse chord (maximum beam to aft). It was 3,819 inches long. 6,180 is to 3,819 as 1.618... is to 1.000.

    The distance of the maximum beam to aft is 3,819 inches. The maximum beam to the bow is 2,361 inches. These are in phi proportions, .618... and .382... Phi determined the shape of Noah's Ark.

    Another way of saying this is that the length of the Ark Artifact was divided, .618 between the maximum beam and the aft, and .382 between the maximum beam and the bow. The inverse of phi is .618... and the inverse of phi squared is .382...

    Windsor maintains that in lofting the lines of the Ark, the designer also needed the knowledge of pi (3.l4l8...).

    6. THE LENGTH OF THE MOON POOL COMPARED TO THE LENGTH OF THE ARK ARTIFACT

    Like the distance, maximum beam to the bow is 2,360+ inches. So also was the length of the Moon Pool. The length of the Moon Pool, 2,360 inches, compared to the length of the Ark, 6,180 inches, as .382... compares to 1.000. .382 is the square of the inverse of phi (.6180).

    7. THE CHALDEAN IKU

    Gilgamesh claimed that he interviewed Noah in his old age, and cited Noah's responses in the first person singular. The Epic of Gilgamesh cites the area of the developed deck of the Ark as one iku. This was the deck area, but excluding the Moon Pool.

  • One iku was its floor space, ... F10
  • The developed deck area was 6,350,400 sq. inches, which was 44,100 sq. ft. This was the area measurement of the Sumerian "iku" and it is also the same area measurement of the old English acre. The modern American acre, in comparison, is 43,560 sq. ft., or one part in 640 of a square mile.

    One Chaldean "iku" and one old English "acre" are the same. The two words are cognate, "iku" and "acre". Even as the old inch standard, 1.001 of a modern inch, appears to be an ancient Sumerian measure for length, so the Sumerian measure for area was "one iku", the deck area of (Noah's) Utnapishtim's Ark.

    Gilgamesh gives the name of the designer and the captain of the Ark as "Utnapishtim". In Genesis it is Noah; in the Egyptian Book of the Dead he is "Nu" and in the Rig Veda of North India he is "Manu". All appear to be derived from the "na" syllable of the Ark builder's Sumerian name.

    8. THE GOLD STANDARD

    The origin of the gold standard is ancient and obscure. Its employment is suggested in the Epic of Gilgamesh, which dates to approximately 2200 B.C.E. It apparently was the Sumerian standard of value.

  • Whatever I had of silver I loaded aboard her;
    Whatever I (had) of gold I loaded aboard her; Fl1
  • XI lines 81-82 No indication is given by Gilgamesh of any weight units.

    CONCLUSION

    Genesis offers the three dimensions for the Ark, 30 x 50 x 300 cubits. A box-like shape has been taken for granted by translators. But, it is a volumetric account, and the Ark was not box-shaped. However, 50 cubits is within inches of full accuracy for its average width. This is surprising in its implication, and in its accuracy.

    The Ark Artifact, what is believed to be the visible formation containing the remains of Noah's Ark, shows the Ark was boat shaped. This formation agrees with the Genesis account if it is realized that the width given in Genesis is the average width, and not the maximum beam.

    The depth of the original Ark Artifact could not be determined. However naval design indicate that 30 cubits, as is given in Genesis, is appropriate for its average depth.

  • Collins claims it to be a "natural rock structure".
  • I claim that, by and large, this structure does not contain individual rocks or even loose gravel; it is composed of deteriorated materials. It did slide down the mountain side from Uzengili-Nisir, where it was originally moored, some 1,000 feet, to the present location. Here, its slide ended as the Ark Artifact was impaled on a large rock. This is the only rock I saw. Collins saw none at all, having never been there.

    Its internal lines are formed by flags, located directly above iron loci within. The flags form lines. These internal lines contain various "phi" proportions no less than seven times, and also the "pi" proportion once. This is masterful design. If Noah's Ark were to be given a second name, it ought to be "The Vessel of Phi".

    Gilgamesh indicates both planning and design in the Ark. Genesis indicates both planning and design. Windsor discovers a profound design, utilizing pi once and phi seven times, if not more.

    Gilgamesh indicates that at the end of its journey, the Ark was moored at "Nisir" or "Mt. Nisir". The nearby village [Nasar] is the former name for Uzengili, and was the name of this Kurdish village for thousands of years. The Ark Artifact slid downhill from its original moorage to its present site.

    That original moorage site is within shouting distance of the Ark Artifact. I know. I saw Kurdish children, dressed in gay colors, and Kurdish men gather around our party, a party of ten on that inspection day (June 21, 1990). After the Turkish men were on the site a couple of hours, I heard Kurdish women, from the Uzengili-Nisir moorage site, some 1,000 feet away, across arroyo terrain in light mountain air, yelling at their men to come back and get to work.

  • Although these relationships might seem to be logical evidence to indicate that the structure was originally man-made, I, as a geologist, can show that all these features could be formed by natural processes. p. 442

    A "Bogus Noah's Ark" p. 439

  • Collins paid little attention if any to the materials in Genesis, in Windsor's two essays, or in Gilgamesh.F12 His essay serves the Lyellian dogma of gradualism in geology very well, but it has no scientific value.

    Collins brings up the adjective "bogus". If Noah's Ark was floated into Inner Eurasia by sudden, high velocity waters, then it is the central dogma of 20th century geology, the idea of Lyell's gradualism for 500,000,000 years, that is bogus.

    And if the erratic boulders once of South India were relocated by sudden, high velocity waters, into North India, it is doubly certain that Lyell's dogma of gradualism, embraced by geological leaders 150 years ago, is "bogus". Such is the essence of this Collins-Patten debate, of which this essay is Part I of Patten's two-part response.

    FOOTNOTES

  • F1 Fasold, formerly a ship's officer in the merchant marine, presumed that iron was used in the construction of ships fittings in the Ark if it were the hardest material available. The forging of iron and brass is recorded in the pre-flood era (Genesis 4:22). It turns out that this was a profound insight of Fasold.

    F2 Alexander Heidel, The Gilgamesh Epic. Op. cit., p. 80, Tablet XI, lines 1l-12.

    F3 Alexander Heidel, The Gilgamesh Epic. 1949, Chicago, Univ. of Chicago Press, Tablet XI, lines 140-141.

    "On Mount Nisir the ship landed. Mount Nisir held the ship fast and did not let (it) move... (Five times the Epic of Gilgamesh, lines 140-144 affirms the Ark landed on Mt. Nisir).

    F4 David Fasold, The Ark of Noah. 1988, New York, Wynwood Press.

    F5 Lorence G. Collins, "Bogus 'Noah's Ark' from Turkey Exposed as a Common Geologic Structure". Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 44, l996, p. 439. Collins' essay can also be found on Internet at http://www.csun.edu/~vcgeo0005/boyush.html

    F6 D. N. Wadia, The Geology of India. 1953, London, McMillan, p. 302.

    As water velocities increase, their power to entrain contaminants increases to the fifth power. If the velocity of water is increased by two, its ability to entrain solids increases by 32. If velocity increases 16 fold, its ability to entrain solids increases by a factor of 1,048,576.

    F7 Donald W. Patten, "The Drogue Stones of Noah and High Velocity Water". l997, Seattle, Pacific Meridian.

    F8 Samuel R. Windsor, "Noah's Ark, 24,000 Deadwt. Tons". Catastrophism & Ancient History, Part I, Jan. 1992. Marvin A. Luckerman, ed. Available at Pacific Meridian Publ., 13540 39th Ave. N.E., Seattle, WA. 98125.

    F9 Samuel R. Windsor, "Noah's Ark - Its Geometry". Catastrophism & Ancient History, XVI, Part I, Jan. 1993. Marvin A. Luckerman, Ed. Also available at Pacific Meridian Publ. Co.

    F10 Heidel, op. cit., p. 82, Tablet XI, line 57.

    F11 Heidel, op. cit., p. 84, Tablet XI, lines 81-82.

    F12 Gilgamesh claims to have interviewed Noah, and he claims his knowledge came from Utnapishtim. Noah also told Gilgamesh the cause of the deluge. That specific cause is cited in Table XI, lines 167 to 171 and it is further implicated in line 16. Windsor and I both concur with Gilgamesh's identification.

  • Biography

    Donald W. Patten was born in Conrad, Montana, and has a B.A. degree in geography from the Univ. of Washington (l952) and a M.A. degree from the same institution (1962). He is the author of The Biblical Flood and the Ice Epoch 1966), The Long Day of Joshua (1973), and Catastrophism and the Old Testament (1988). With Windsor, he is the co-author of The Recent Organization of the Solar System (1995) and The Last of the Mars-Earth Wars (1997). Projected for 1998 is their The Flood of Noah. In addition, Windsor and Patten have written over ten published essays on Earth history.


    A Debate:  The Site of Noah's Ark
    <http://www.creationism.org/patten/PattenSiteNoahsArk.html>



    Main:  Patten
    www.creationism.org