In Search of Noah's Ark

A Fresh Approach

In spite of enormous effort, and a few false alarms, Noah's Ark still hasn't been found. Dr. Gerald Aardsma of The Biblical Chronologist has taken a fresh approach to the search for Noah's Ark. The results, so far, are exciting.

The Bible says that Noah's Ark landed in "the mountains of Ararat". Ararat refers to a region, not a specific mountain. Dr. Aardsma decided to use both biblical and scientific data in a new way to search for Noah's Ark in that region.

Clues, Maps, and Computer Programs

The Bible provides a lot of detail about the Flood, the Ark, and the mountain the Ark landed on. Additional information about the location of the mountain the ark came to rest upon can be inferred from certain clues within the biblical text. For example:

1. No neighboring mountains were visible when the ark came to rest on its mountain (Genesis 8:5). This means the mountain the ark landed on must be significantly taller than its neighbors.
2. Neighboring "mountains" (plural) became visible on the same day (Genesis 8:5). This implies that the mountain the ark landed on must have had at least two neighbors of nearly equal height.
3. The mountain the ark landed on seems to have been steeply sloped because Noah apparently couldn't see the ground beneath the ark from inside the ark (Genesis 8:13).
4. The ark landed "upon the mountains" (Genesis 8:4), suggesting a mountainous region, as opposed to a broad plain.
5. Noah's descendants eventually discovered the "land of Shinar" (Genesis 11:2), probably by following the Tigris river. This suggests nearness of the mountain the ark landed on to streams feeding ultimately into the Tigris.

Out of 1,441 "mountains" in the Ararat region, only 41 fit clue 1 above. This was determined based on the curvature of the earth's surface and the elevations and locations of the 1,441 mountains. A custom-designed computer program did the math for each candidate. 1,400 mountains were eliminated, but there were still 41 remaining candidates to choose from.

Dr. Aardsma then obtained characteristics such as elevation and location for the remaining candidates. By inputting these characteristics into another custom-designed computer program, each candidate was rated according to how well it fit the biblical clues.

It was no surprise that Mt. Ararat rated very well. It was a surprise that it ranked second, not first. Even more surprising, the top-ranked candidate fit the clues 62 times better overall than Mt. Ararat! The top-ranked candidate is called Cilo Dagi. We've nicknamed it Mt. Cilo.

Is the Ark on Mt. Cilo?

Since the ark is such a large object, it made sense to try to obtain satellite photos of Mt. Cilo to see what might be visible there. With the help of research partner Bert Hawley some photographic enlargements of satellite photos from public archives were obtained. Visual examination of the photos revealed some objects that didn't seem to fit with their surroundings. After considerable investigation, IO3 (Interesting Object #3) prevailed as the most likely candidate for Noah's Ark.

New Photo Obtained September, 2001

In September, 2001 we obtained a new, custom satellite photo of IO3. We purchased this photo from Space Imaging. It was shot specifically for us by the IKONOS satellite. The area of interest from the new photo is shown here.

What's exciting about the new photograph is not so much what is different than the photos from the 1960's, but rather what is not different. There is still an interesting object there after 40 years of weather and seasons. This helps rule out the possibility that IO3 is merely an illusion of rock and snow. Notice the excellent resolution of the new image in comparison to the older image above.

Conclusion

In the conclusion of the initial disclosure of the IO3-ark candidacy in The Biblical Chronologist Volume 5, Number 3 Dr. Aardsma wrote:

I need to make it very clear that the research team is not claiming IO3 is Noah's ark at this stage. We are unable either to confirm or to refute the possibility that IO3 may be the ark based on the information (satellite photos) we presently have available. ...

The claim that an object is the ark can only be responsibly made after: 1. close-up (probably ground-based, on-site) photographs reveal an object which is suitable to the ark both inside and out, and 2. wood from such a visibly suitable structure has been shown by radiocarbon to date to within a few centuries prior to 3520 +/- 21 B.C. ... Neither of these two conditions has yet been met with IO3 or any other object which has ever been advanced as a candidate for the ark.

These comments are still applicable at present---despite considerable time and effort invested by all members of the research team to bring the IO3 candidacy to a definite conclusion one way or the other. We still don't know if this is Noah's Ark. We won't know for certain until someone visits the mountain and brings back photographs and samples of this object. Meanwhile, we have learned that getting to that location is a lot more difficult than you might think!