Letters

(not published) suggest that the chance of at least owes us an explanation of how right that the Turkish soldiers did see the whole path, including pre-selection and he—a non-witness—is better able to the Ark (and they were wrong about fine-tuning afterwards actually be executed, appears to be less than that the highly refined determine what Vince saw than Vince their own location) after WWI. That final gene should arise by trail and error in one himself. would have to mean that the Ark was leap. Not only are the chances of fixing each Crouse also contends that Ararat still extant at least until WWI. Yet, mutation having positive selection small, but has been thoroughly searched and elsewhere in the same article is a photo extinction of each evolutionary ‘experiment’ fully documented. I doubt that anyone of a stone structure on the mountain, to generate new genes requires starting all over again multiple times. actually involved in climbing Ararat called ‘the Ship of ’ by the locals. believes that to be the case—myself According to Crouse, Gertrude Bell included. Two of my friends and took this photo after ‘exploring the partners at different times, John summit’ in 1910 many years prior to McIntosh and Richard Bright, were WWI. with James Irwin at various times and Where is the Ark of Noah pur­ Is Cudi Dagh an im- both have attested to the fact that even portedly seen by the Turkish soldiers Irwin’s teams searched very little of seven years later? Is it possible possible location? the upper reaches of the Ahora Gorge. Gertrude would ‘explore the summit,’ They were thwarted at different times take a photo of a crumbling stone I am writing in response to Bill by the military, by the conditions, and corral, and ignore a 150-m long ship? Crouse’s article in which he espouses even by Irwin himself (falling and Hardly. Which means that photo­ an alternative resting-place for Noah’s being injured and thereby aborting graphic evidence in Crouse’s own Ark. While I would agree that the that year’s mission). The mountain article preclude him from using the primary reason for searching on Mount is vast, treacherous, and difficult to Turkish soldiers, or Prince Nouri, or Ararat is the wealth of eyewitness access—physically, politically and ‘two Turkish journalists in 1949’ to accounts that place the Ark there, I spiritually—and fully capable of somehow add credibility to a theory would heartily disagree that other continuing to hide the Ark, especially which otherwise is completely devoid reasons are invalid. The very fact given the year-round snow cover. of any credible eyewitness support. that physical conditions on Ararat Crouse, in lieu of eyewitnesses, To put it simply, if Crouse’s theory make it possible for the Ark to both uses the Koran and several other had any merit, we would have to be preserved, as well as hidden most Muslim sources to bolster his theory accept the following: the Ark lasted of the time (which thus lends credence that the Ark came to rest on Cudi Dagh. for well over 4,000 years on a moun­ to the eyewitness accounts), make Of course, it stands to reason that since tain not covered in ice, a mountain Ararat a leading candidate, whereas the Koran mentions Cudi Dagh as the readily accessible, but it was never Cudi Dagh is an impossible location resting-place of the Ark, other Muslim photographed or properly documented, for the Ark’s preservation from a sources would scarcely dare publicly and the only people who saw it and physical standpoint alone. If it had contradict Mohammed. Even the told about it, either did not even indeed landed there, it would hardly existence of a stone ‘mock-up’ of the know where they were or they lied have been preserved to be the subject Ark on Cudi Dagh is not evidence of about where they were in order to of eyewitness reports several millennia the Ark having once been there, but make their story more acceptable to later. I would furthermore take issue evidence of the Islamic faithful paying other Christians, and then the Ark with Crouse’s rather flippant dismissal tribute to their belief in the Koran. completely disappeared within the last of the eyewitnesses as either mistaken Crouse has an interesting pattern 80 years. Or, the Ark can disappear or crackpots. He admits that one of determining the reliability of a and reappear, even though, as the photo example of a credible witness would witness: Everyone who claims to have shows, there is no snow to hide it. suffice to undermine his entire thesis. seen Noah’s Ark on Maybe, the Ark no longer exists in Has he spoken with Vince Will? Vince is ‘unreliable’ because, according to recognizable form, but if it does, the is a Christian pastor who saw the Ark Crouse, it is not there; on the other only credible evidence for it is on Mt. both in photographs and from the hand, those eyewitnesses who were Ararat. I would, however, concur with pilot’s seat of a plane during WWII. either lost or liars are deemed reliable Crouse on one additional point, namely He examined the photos closely and when Crouse—a non-eyewitness— that finding Noah’s Ark will most then verified his sightings from the believes their testimony can be altered certainly require God’s intervention air. He is adamant that it was no rock, to bolster his theory. It’s easy to claim and timing, as well as the prayers and since it was broken open and he was that there are no reliable eyewitnesses efforts of His people. able to see inside a portion of it (ever when you simply change the testimony seen a rock with cages inside it?). He of those you disagree with, or better David Larsen is so certain of what he saw that he has yet, call them liars. Pasadena, California stated he would ‘stake his salvation But going one step further, for the UNITED STATES of AMERICA upon it being the Ark’. If Vince Will sake of argument, suppose Crouse is is a crackpot or mistaken, Mr. Crouse

58 TJ 16(2) 2002 Letters

accounts of Chuchian,1 Liedmann,2 Cudi Dagh not high Gurley, Navarra,3 and Behling4 are clearly not true. Two, Gurley5 and enough ? Liedmann confessed to lying. At least one of the above suffered from mental Bill Crouse1 suggests there is com- problems. pelling evidence, from ancient histori- With regard to the WWII aviator, cal accounts prior to the middle of the Vince Will, I have read his account and 13th century, that Noah’s Ark rested on have no opinion. I will only say that Cudi Dagh (Cudi Dagi), a mountain in what he saw was evidence for him. southern Turkey about 300 km south We have no photos or other evidence west of Mount Ararat. to corroborate his story. Crouse cites several geological I believe David misread my account Bill Crouse replies: reasons why remains of the Ark might of the Turkish soldiers (p.16). If they not still be on Ararat, and then seems saw anything it was probably the Ark- to infer that because the remains of First off I would agree with David shaped stone building on Cudi Dagh. that Mt Ararat is a mountain conducive the Ark are not found on Ararat that It would have been clearer perhaps if it never landed there, suggesting that to preserving an object the size of I had written ‘…when they came upon Noah’s Ark. If it were covered with after a proposed sub‑surface survey what they thought was Noah’s Ark.’ of the icecap; ‘Ararat should be com- volcanic rock it could easily have By the tone of David’s letter it pletely discounted as the final resting become fossilized, and if it were buried seems he has an emotional commit­ place of Noah’s Ark’. This seems an perpetually in ice the wood would not ment to the Ararat site. For reasons I illogical conclusion given that he has rot. He also mentions that the size of can’t go into here, I also have emotional just cited several reasons why, if the Ararat renders it a good hiding place. ties to Ararat. I wish it would be found It is definitely a massive and complex there, and I am still intrigued by the so- Ark had landed on Ararat it would not volcanic structure but it is still finite. called Ararat Anomaly.6 Perhaps we still be there! One Turkish officer in the commando will soon have a definitive answer. Crouse lists several ancient pagan, force stationed in that area told me Christian, Jewish and Islamic ac- he trained his men on the mountain Bill Crouse counts and suggests that the historical and there were very few places he Richardson, Texas evidence from these ancient references had not been. The mountain has UNITED STATES OF AMERICA that the Ark landed on Cudi Dagh eas- been searched by fixed wing plane ily outweigh historical evidence that it on numerous occasions as well as by References landed on Ararat. high-powered helicopter. My point is, I suggest that there are two geo- the mountain in the last 20 years has 1. Ararat Report, February–March 1990, p. 5. graphical arguments which, when con- been thoroughly searched. Previous For this article I spent a day with Chuchian as sidered in the light of three passages of writers have also exaggerated the size well as interviewing his employer and others Scripture, may rule out Cudi Dagh as a who knew him. of the icecap not the mention that possible resting place for the Ark. it has greatly shrunken in size over 2. Ararat Report, January 1987, p. 2. Liedmann the last several decades. The entire confessed to lying before the elders and pastor of his church in Lubbock, TX, and later to the First geographical argument icecap can easily (maybe not a good entire congregation. My source was the pastor choice of words!) be searched in an who is currently pastor of a large church in Genesis 7:24, ‘ … the waters afternoon. Most of this ice is moving Dallas, TX. prevailed upon the earth a hundred down the mountain as several glacial 3. Ararat Report, May 1993, p. 2. and fifty days’ (i.e. until day 150). fingers with the possible exception of 4. Ararat Report, May 1993, p. 4. Genesis 8:4, ‘ … the ark two areas which may be stationary, but rested in the seventh month, on have now had preliminary checks with 5. Before his death, Gurley was a subscriber to Ararat Report and he often corresponded. He the seventeenth day of the month, penetrating radar. confessed to me personally that the story he upon the ’ (i.e. I am sorry that David took my wrote about the Russian discovery was entirely day 150). dismissal of eyewitnesses as flippant. I fiction. Genesis 7:24 and 8:4 indicate, can assure the readers of TJ that I spent 6. Maier, T.W., Anomaly or Noah’s ark? Insight hundreds of hours tracking down and 16(43):10–14, November 20, 2000. in my opinion unequivocally, that the Ark rested on the same day that waters comparing stories. I also believe I am 2 on firm ground to dismiss most of them began to subside. The maximum as not reliable (the word ‘crackpot’ is floodwater level then could have been David’s). Nowhere did I call anyone little more than the draft the Ark (15 a liar, but for the record, I believe the cubits/6.7 m) above the summit alti-

TJ 16(2) 2002 59