Talk:Durupınar site

Sections

The Turkish Government has recognized it as Noah's Ark and have a visitor center. Why has no one mentioned this? This article is obviously heavily biased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.84.26.231 (talk) 02:12, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Dear Wikipedians who wanted sections and references:

I have put some sections in and references where the one guy wanted them. I have removed the tags (is it appropriate for me to do that? I do not know. If it was inappropriate, I apologize and will learn my lesson.) As to the "spam" external link, I think it is just one the "Noah's Ark Adrift in Dark Waters" one, which is a link to where June Dawes sells the book. However, there is a brief description of the contents of the book, which I think is helpful and I have duly noted in the links section now. I hope that helps. TuckerResearch 23:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

An alternative approach

It seems to me that the article is unduly personality-oriented - Fasold, Wyatt et al get all the attention at the expense of what's actually at the site. There are already articles about these individuals. How about re-doing this to concentrate on the site itself - what's visibly there, the claims and their history, the scientific investigations? PiCo 07:59, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Personalities inexorably linked

The "who did what when" aspects of the article under the "Discovery" section are important, and necessarily speak of the Fasold, Wyatt et al. Those should remain as is, and be added to as further work is conducted at this site. The discussion of the Collins paper and some of the controversy between the views of varioius individuals/camps in the "Doubts" section might be moved to the Fasold article. Firewall 06:18, 30 September 2006 (EST)

The Durupinar article is quite literally an abridged version of the David Fasold article, with very little, if any, additional material. It realy does need to be re-thought. That said, I agre that a brief history of the discovery and promotion of tyhe site is still needed, and that the current length of the history section of this article is about right - but it needs to be less Fasold-centric, and it needs far more on what's actually at the site. I'll have a try later and you can se what you think. PiCo 04:22, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

New section, "Description"

Added a new section, headed "Description", which simply sets out the geology of the ste in as neutral a manner as I can manage. The material regarding the iden tification of the site as the Ark is still there, but I had to rearrange some sentences from the existing introduction to allow the new section to make sense. Added an illustration to show what a syncline looks like. (Would be nice to haev some more miullustrations - one of a reconstruction of the Ark, one of Ron Wyatt...). Some more work could be done - I still feel the overall article is excessivly Fasold-centric. For discussion.PiCo 10:00, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

The description section is a good idea, but the description needs to be accurate. The description that is there after the last edit is taken from Collins' article which is full of assumptions (in private conversations with a Turkish geologist who has been on site many times, Collins' article in his words is, "not significant"). Collins never visited the Durupinar site and made his assumptions from Fasold's aerial photographs and comments from Fasold. His analysis of materials is made from Fasold's undocumented uncataloged collection of rocks in cardboard boxes his garage. The description as it stands comes across as fact, rather than conjecture (which it is). Further, the inclusion of the syncline photo implies that it was taken at the Durupinar site (I had to re-read it closely to see that this wasn't from the site), and is thus, misleading. Ground penetration radar studies (by Fasold, Baumgardner, Wyatt) concentrated on the structure itself and not the surrounding area to either side (in order to establish that it is part of the existing geology and not transported there in the mud slide as some claim). Also, bar holes dug to extract samples again only concentrated on the structure itself, and not the surroundings. To make the claim that this is a doubly plunging syncline is just one of several assumptions and carries less authority than some others made by on-site geologists. I think this section needs to be dropped until it can be made to reflect other views because in its present form, it is quite misleading. Firewall 03:10, 1 October 2006 (EST)

Thanks. I haven't got time to do any more right now, and won't for a week or more, but I'll get back when in I can. In the meantime fel free to do whatever editing you think appropriate. PiCo 02:48, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Mt Cudi/Judi

Where does the claim originate that Mt Cudi, which the Kor'an describes as the Ark's resting place, is close to Mt Ararat? They are far apart - see chapter 4 of David Rohl's book Legend, in particular the map on p147. Rohl argues that Ararat in the Bible means Urartu, a region far south of Mt Ararat. - AG, Stockport, UK.

There are at least five Mt Judi/Mt Cudis in the region. The Durupinar one is very recent, being renamed in the 80s by the provincial governor in order to encourage tourism. PiCo 01:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

What is the reference concerning the 80s governor making this pronouncement? In a 1998 meeting at Atatürk University, we heard from a Prof. of Islamic Religion who made the claim that al Cudi referred to a region and not a specific peak. It would be interesting to know if ANY of the multiple peaks named Cudi in the region were so named prior to the Quran or whether they are all artifacts of people naming peaks Cudi based on what they read in the Quran. User:Firewall 10:38, 14 December 2006

There is an unbroken tradition that the Mt Judi shown on Rohl's map is the one referred to in the Kor'an; this tradition runs further back at least to Josephus (Rohl p148). I suggest the sentence saying Judi/Cudi is close to Durupinar/Ararat be deleted. - AG, Stockport, UK.

There's certainly a Mt Cudi at Durupinar - the question is when and how it got it's name. Drat, I can't find my source for the statement that it was renamed by the governor of the region in the 80s - as usual, I got it out of Google, that reliable source of trustworthy information. But the name of the governor was Sevkit Ekinci, and the province is called Agri. Have a look here. And then google away. Good luck :-)PiCo 04:38, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've been checking with my contacts in Turkiye, esp. the geologist formerly over this region. He informs me that (in his own words):

1. in Quran the statement is this way: Noahs Ark rested on the Cudi ( Al Cudi).. not on the Cebel al Cudi ( Cudi Mountain) therefore location described in Quran is not a Peak or Mount, it is an area (wide and high) so, we do not need any peak called Cudi or Ararat... near [Durupinar] site.

Similar hint from Bible, by making it plural... the Ark landed on the mountains of Ararat - the same approach again, it is area - not a point
2. The sharp point to SE of the Site, at Iran Frontier, has no particular name on maps. There is Ziyaret Tepe ( which means Ziggurat Hill ) ... but no Cudi name....I didnt see any map with this name....

This is consistent with what we were told in 1998 by the Atatürk University Prof. of Islamic Religion. Regarding Sevkit Ekinci in the Snelling article, he's long gone, having since been replaced by many other governors. These governors are all appointed by Ankara (coming from western Turkiye), are not usually familiar with this region of eastern Turkiye, and probably unlikely to name topography since this would be in conflict with the official military maps of the region. I have one of these military maps (ca 1980s) and there is no reference to Cudi although Ziyaret Dağı (Ziyaret mountain) does refer to escarpment above the site (as mentioned in the personal communication above).

If, in fact, al Cudi refers to the region, one would not expect to find a peak with this name. Note that Ağrı Dağı ("painful mountain" in Turkçe) did not get dubbed "Mt. Ararat" until recent history either, whereas the "mountains of Urartu" (Ararat) which does not exclusively refer to the volcano Ağrı Dağı, is language at least as old as the writing of the book of Genesis. User:Firewall 8:38, 17 December 2006

Interesting. I wouldn't delete the statement in the article that there's a Mt Cudi at Durupinar, simply because so many people now believe this - if they don't see it, they'll ask why it's not there and probably add it back in. What's needed is a sentence or two saying that the name is if doubtful authenticity - and giving references that anyone can check (which means, unfortunately, that your Turkish friends can't be used as sources, since not everyone can check with them). PiCo 02:58, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Thats why I asked earlier what your source was. It is difficult to argue from the point of "absence of information", so stating that there is no Mt. Cudi near Durupinar because it doesn't show up on recent maps (or any maps) is not a "proof". Fasold and others told me that the peak to the SW is Cudi, but no documentation... The "regional" al Cudi arguement seems to be plausible, but again, other than verbal claims, there is no written source that I can appeal to right now. Personally, I don't put any credance in the Ağrı Govenor story because I have met with several of them and they simply don't have the horsepower to change maps in the military zone along the Iranian border. I think the best thing to do is to find the earliest documented maps of the region and show that they either DO or DO NOT reference a Mt. Cudi within 100 miles of Durupinar. Doing this still doesn't negate the "al Cudi is a region" arguement, but the basis for that would likewise need to be substantiated in some early writings-- somthing that will probably take an Islamic scholar to dig up. User:Firewall 12:07, 18 December 2006

I've made an addition to the footnote in the article (the footnote immediately after the first reference to Mt Cudi) - see what you think. But I really do think that in the interests of accuracy the article should say that this only one of several Cudy/Judis. PiCo 05:55, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The footnote is good and the reference to Geissler's site is probably as good as you can get as background material for this subject, but in the main text it still says, "it is near one of the mountains called al Cudi..." which I don't believe can be substantiated. Perhaps it would be better to say, "it is near several currently unnamed peaks, one of which some claim to be al Cudi..." Then I would add something like, "On the other hand, scholars of Islamic religion at Turkiye's Atatürk University have suggested that "al Cudi" actually refers to a region, not a specific mountain, in much the same way that the Bible refers to the mountains (plural) or Urartu (Ararat) rather than a single mountain (see Genesis 8:4)." User:Firewall 10:08, 18 December 2006

As at December 2014 the information about al Cudi referring to a region rather that a peak has been removed from the footnote. This gives the misleading impression that there is a single peak near the Durupinar site named al Cudi. I have updated the footnote to include the al Cudi discussion again. In addition, the preceding footnote (3) which is used to support the existence of a peak named al Cudi references only Fassold 1988. I have changed the fotenoted sentence to read "Recent accounts assert that ..." [Comment by User:Richard Scrivener]

Hi User:Richard Scrivener. I've changed your edit a bit. I kept the Fasold reference to Cudi Dağı but now include the phrase "...which David Fasold linked to Mount Judi..." (I also put in the Arabic for Mount Judi). I then added the sentence, modified from the text you put in the footnote: "Most researchers place Mount Judi in another location farther south near the Turkish/Iraqi border." I footnoted this to the page you linked to at noahsarksearch.com, in proper citation format for Wikipedia. I removed this sentence from the footnote: "The association of the Durupinar site with the name al Cudi appears to be recent (late twentieth century) and is asserted principally by David Fasold" because the citation you provided doesn't even mention Fasold. It appears that this sentence is your WP:OR. (In fact, the webpage you pointed to states: "Still others in the past fifteen years have claimed that the Durupinar site is located on Mount Cudi.") TuckerResearch (talk) 02:36, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Changed "Most" to "Some" because the NoahsArkSearch.com reference does not claim "most researchers" and I don't see any reference making that assertion. Safer to say "some researchers" in the absence of such a reference so as not to bias the paragraph. ⁃ Firewall 05:51, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Good call. TuckerResearch (talk) 03:04, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Might someone...

Someone better versed on this should talk about the Turkish government's official position on the Durupınar site. Mentioning the road sign, etc. TuckerResearch 04:22, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Chicken or Egg?

Although I don't accept that the Bible, Koran, Rig Veda, Elder Edda, Iliad or whatever are accurate historical accounts, I do accept that some elements in them probably derive from actual historical events, seen through the distorting lenses of tradition, religion, politics, out-dated understanding etc, and that there can be interest and value in investigating such possibilities.

Rather than the admittedly boat-resembling but natural Durupinar formation being Noah's Ark, might it be that the Noah's Ark story (in it's pre-biblical origins) was invented to explain the formation?

This is of course mere "Original Research" speculation on my part, but if the idea has occurred to me it must have occurred to others more qualified and might be documented and verifiable, and therefore worthy of inclusion in this article. Has anyone come across such a published conjecture? 40.0.96.2 10:27, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

You're theory is plausible, but I haven't come across it. The consensus in biblical scholarship circles seems to be that the author of the Ark story lived in the 6th century BC or thereabouts, was Jewish, and thought it would be a good idea to take Babylonian myths and re-write them in a way that would show that Yahweh, and not Marduk, was top god. Bear in mind that back then myth wasn't myth, it was science: if the priests said that such-and-such was the way things happened, then by golly that was it. The Hebrews were exiles living in Babylon, trying to figure out (or at least their priests were trying to figure out) how it could possibly be that Yahweh, god of Judah (see Deuteronomy 32), had allowed Marduk, the god of Babylon, to destroy Jerusalem, his (Yahweh's) own holy city. And they found the answer: Yahweh was angry because the Hebrews had offended him, they had worshipped other gods, like Asherah and Baal. So here were the Marduk-myths, in which the gods of Babylon did various things, like create heaven and earth and send a flood to destroy mankind (Atrahasis. But they were wrong wrong wrong: Yahweh, not Marduk, was the one true god, and the flood was sent by Yahweh, not Marduk, and from Noah and his sons were all the nations of the earth descended, with (if you follow closely the genealogies in Genesis 12) the children of Israel as the senior branch of the human race, and the House of David as the senior branch even of the Hebrews (i.e., king David is the direct descendant, in the senior line, of Noah). So the ark story served a far more immediate purpose, to refute Babylonian myth and to establish the primacy of the Israelites and the House of David. (For further details on Hebrew erligion and such, google William Dever's book on Israelite religion - In think the title refers to Yahweh's wife - and Mark S. Smith, who is probably the current most quotable academic source on this subject. The blog called Higgaion is also good). PiCo 12:42, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, this theory was, for a short time, advocated by David Fasold when he doubted the Durupinar site was the ark. He held that the ancients saw the boat shape and thought it was the ark of the old flood stories. I read it in an article about the Plimer case in Australia, but can't track down a good citation right now. TuckerResearch (talk) 07:58, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Interpretation of Shape

The appearance of the Durupinar site is clearly boat-shaped as can be seen without interpretation in the original Turkish aerial photographs analyzed by Ilhan Durupinar for whom the site is named. Recent interviews with Durupinar (who is still alive as of 2007) testify to the fact they he considered the shape to be boat like himself. Pareidolia implies something like a Rorschach test image which is vague enough to be interpreted differently by various individuals. The characteristic boat-shape of the Durupinar formation in the original aerial photos is undeniably "boat-shaped". Seismic activity and weathering since its appearance in the late '50s has caused degradation of the eastern side, but its original identification as a "boat-shaped" object is still historically accurate. Firewall (talk) 00:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Correct. Even those who don't think it is the ark note its shape as boat-like. See for instance [1]: "Thirty-five years ago, Life magazine carried a story of an expedition sent to investigate the outline of a ship in a mud-flow near Dogubayazit in eastern Turkey." (This is from a peer-reviewed journal: Lorence Gene Collins and David Franklin Fasold, “Bogus ‘Noah’s Ark’ From Turkey Exposed as a Common Geologic Structure,” Journal of Geosciences Education 44 (1996): 439-444.) Or this from a creationist magazine which does not believe the site is the ark, [2]: "That boat-shaped rock - is it Noah’s Ark?" (John D. Morris, "That boat-shaped rock - is it Noah’s Ark?" Creation 12, no. 4 (September 1990):16–19). TuckerResearch (talk) 08:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Fasold.jpg

Image:Fasold.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

More from Fasold

In April 1998 he wrote a post on Usenet: . davidfasold View profile More options Apr 4 1998, 8:00 am Newsgroups: alt.atheism From: davidfas...@proaxis.com Date: 1998/04/04 i just watched the tape through next to the computer/ noah's ark field surveys, 1985-86 noah's ark or not,the whole frequency genrartor and metal detector dispute between michelle and jm is all there for everyone to see michelle's argument is totally unjustified. there cn be no argument about it.

the tape itself is probably the worse one i ever produced, but i can still make afew copies i'm not paying your -shipping. butthis item is free for discussion. actually i don't know why we are even discussing this on alt. ateism, ithought this waas talk orrigin. what subjects did you alk about before? a note to michelle i agreewith you michelle that the story of theworld wide flood and the ark with the sandiego zoo aboard as esposed by creationists like jm and wyatt is a christian myth, but the real story of ziusudra and his ark of reeds and domesticated animal and the local flood of seven days, was real and proved by the 11 foot flood layer aof silt didcovered by wooley at uUruk. the story has becomeembellished, plus the real noah wasa sceaming pagan worshipping thesun god, so any argument between youand jm is made moot by the fact that christians have embellished this ocurance beyond belief. their noah's ark cannot exist dave fasol

And a few days earlier:

DF ANSWERS; #1THAT CRUDELY SHAPED BOAT SHAPE IS NOT CRUDELY SHAPED AT ALL,

IT'S PERFECTLY SHAPED AND 300 BY 49.88 CUBITS INCLUDING NINE RELATIONSHIPS TO PHI. READ SAM WINDSOR'S NOAH'S ARK IT'S GEOMETRY. #2 IT'S NOT ON ARARAT, IT'S 17 MILES SOUTH. #3 WHAT DO OCEANIC IGNEOUS ROCKS HAVE TO DO WITH WHETHER IT IS OR ISN'T THE ARK, EXCEPT MAKE JOHN MORRIS SOUND LIKE A GEOLOGIST INSTEAD OF THE HEAD OF A PUBLISHING HOUSE THAT PUMPMS OUT SILLY LITTLE CHILDREN'S BOOKS SHOWING NOAH LOADING DINOSAURS ABOARD AN ARK BARGE THAT WOULD BREAK UP IN FAIR WEATHER.

1. 4 PROFESSOR IAN PLIMER, HEAD OF EARTH SCIENCES DEPARTMENT AT THE UNIVERSITY

OF MELBOURNE, AFTER WRITING AN ARTICLE IN THE SYDNEY WEEKEND EDITION SAYING IT WAS NOTHING MORE THAN AN ERRODED SYNCLINE, HAD TO TAKE IT ALL BACK. A 100 YARDS AWAY FROM IT IN 1994, HE SAIDTO ME'WELL, I'M WRONG', BUT HE WOULDN'T SAY IT ON CAMERA TO AUSTRALIA BROADCASTING COMPANY'S 'FOUR CORNERS' #5 AN ORDINARY GEOLOGICAL STRUCTURE? IT'S SO ORDINARY THAT FIVE GEOLOGISTS CAN'TCOME TO A COMMON AGREEMENT ON WHAT IT IS, OR HOW IT GOT THERE. BAYRAKTUTAN, COLLINS, PLIMER, MORRIS, AND SNELLING and NOAH'S ARK OK , I WENT WILD WITH THIS, A BIT PREMATURE YOU MIGHT SAY, BUT WHO WOULDN'T. IT IS 300 BY 50 CUBITS AND BOAT SHAPPED AND HAS TWELVE ANCHORS IN THE AREA WITH ROPE HOLES.IT'D DECK SPACE AS DESCRIBED IN THE EPIC OF GILGAMES IS ONE IKU (44,100 SQUARE FEET AND THE SAME FOR THE 129 DIVISIONS. IT MATCHES THE 'BARQUE OF ZIUSUDRA', SHIP OF THE DELUGE, BUT IT WILL NEVER BE THE NOAH'S ARK OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGINS AND THE BIBLE. CALMING DOWN, WE LOOK AT IT AGAIN. NOW THE IMPORTANT THING TO REMEMBER HERE IS IF IT WAS EVIDENCE THAT YOU BASED YOUR OPINION ON TO BEGIN WITH, THAT EVIDENCE HAS TO GO AWAY FOR YOU TO CHANGE YOUR OPINION. BAUMGARDNER CAN CHANGE HIS OPINION, BUT THOSE 13 LONGITUDINAL LINES AND NINE TRANSVERSE LINES, HAVEN'T GONE AWAY, SO UNLESS A SYNCLINE EXPLAINS IT, AND IN THAT CASE, YOU HAVE THE ROCK THAT GOT INTO THE BIBLE) YOU HAVETO DIG DEEPER , AND THIS SITE HASN'T BEEN DUG AT ALL.YET. I'VE SPENT 13 YEARS OF MY LIFE TRYING TO FIGURE IT OUT. PEOPLE WHO POP-OFF THAT IT'S A SINCLINE HAVEN'T SEEN IT. THE ARTICLE I WROTE WITH LARRY COLLINS PRESUPPOSES IT'S A SYNCLINE AND HOW IT WOULD SOLVE THE RIDDLE, BUT FOUR OTHER GELOGISTS SAY IT'S NOT A SYNCLINE. (IT'S NOT FOLDED ROCK BY THE WAY AND THERE IS NO SHISTOSITY DOWN THE MIDDLE) IT'S JUST SOMETHING COVERED IN MUD. PERSONALLY I HOPE IT IS LARRY'S SYNCLINE SO I CAN DIE IN PEACE. FROM THE MEAN REMARKS I GET FROM SOME CHRISTIANS, NOAH'S ARK DOESN'T DESERVE TO BE DISCOVERED

THERE IS ONE POSSIBLE SCENARIO AND IF ANYONE IS SERIOUS ABOUT THE REAL STORY AND THE REAL NOAH'S ARK ENOUGH TO DISCUSS IT AFTER GETTING THESE OTHER ISSUES OUT OF THEWAY, I'LL STAY, OTHEWISE, I'M MOVING ON ' —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 17:01, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Fasold thought it was Ziusudra's ark

Firewall, why have you removed my correction? David didn't think it was Noah's ark. He didn't believe in Noah's ark. Aren't his own words good enough to show what his opinion was shortly before he died? I don't want to get into an edit war, but how is my correction wrong?--Dougweller (talk) 21:29, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Fasold's theology was complicated and changed over time. He died a Roman Catholic, not an athiest. His comments in the unreferenced (need ref with URL in order to include in article) USNET article attributed to him above are in contrast to his book where he goes into much more detail. Also, I have E-MAIL from Fasold weeks before his death where he recanted his denial that he believed the Durupinar site to be the actual Ark of Noah. Unfortunately these, and other phone conversations, are merely "personal communications" and can not themselves serve as references in a Wikipedia article. Personal interviews with June Dawes, who knew Fasold in his latter years, will support this as well, but if you don't do your homework and check the facts personally with the living individuals involved, you end up drawing blanket (and incorrect) conclusions from isolated internet postings. To keep the article from bias, it is best not to speculate about Fasold's Christianity or lack thereof unless the history of his belief systems is discussed with some specificity. That is beyond the scope of this article. Firewall (talk) 21:35, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I was more concerned about the statements that he was Christian. One of his last UseNet posts says he is a born again pagan! I also had emails from him as you may recall my saying.. But it is clear that he didn't think it was Noah's ark in his last few weeks. I'll get some Urls for the USENET stuff.--Dougweller (talk) 21:42, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually I really would like evidence he wasn't an atheist when he died. Besides his claim just before he died to be a born again pagan, others cite letters from him in which he stated he was an atheist.--Dougweller (talk) 14:41, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

post from Fasold "NOAH'S ARK OK , I WENT WILD WITH THIS, A BIT PREMATURE YOU MIGHT SAY, BUT WHO WOULDN'T. IT IS 300 BY 50 CUBITS AND BOAT SHAPPED AND HAS TWELVE ANCHORS IN THE AREA WITH ROPE HOLES.IT'D DECK SPACE AS DESCRIBED IN THE EPIC OF GILGAMES IS ONE IKU (44,100 SQUARE FEET AND THE SAME FOR THE 129 DIVISIONS. IT MATCHES THE 'BARQUE OF ZIUSUDRA', SHIP OF THE DELUGE, BUT IT WILL NEVER BE

THE NOAH'S ARK OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGINS AND THE BIBLE." - can I edit the article now with this as a reference?--Dougweller (talk) 21:45, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

By all means, reference the USENET text. While one could claim that Fasold was not the real author, I, having read it believe that he is because of the points he was harping on and the way he phrased them. Later in the USENET discussion (later from your quote above), Fasold says, "in signing off, want too say that theories change with time [is this noah's srk or not]. ... if it's not noah's ark, what is it] ... but as any theory is adaptive with time based on new evidence [as in my case] the new theory must continue to explan the same observations and evidence that exised to support the old theory... i figured 5,400 man made iron fittings arranged in a symetrical patten of a boat shape 300 cubits long and an average 50 scubits wide in the mountains of Ararat was a pretty safe bet as to what all the pilgrims were visiting. i think readers would agree with me on that. so on that basis i wrote a 387 page book called THE AK OF NOAH. and claimed the discovery for a turkish farmer named ali oglu reshit sarinhan in who's field it appeared after an earthquake in 1948."

Fasold was open to many interpretations INCLUDING that the Durupinar site was in fact the Ark of Noah. In the quote that you are proposing, he is saying that it also fits the "Barque of Ziusudra" and that would never be accepted by certain Christians like Ron Wyatt who had already made up their minds. So including only the quote that you propose will likely bias the article to make it look like Dave Fasold believed that the Durupinar site was in fact the "Barque of Ziusudra", which is entirely not the case.

I recommend that if you want to reference the USENET quote, you do so (but don't quote it in the text as it is too long) with some kind of statement that "Dave Fasold considered many theories about the nature of the Durupinar site, ranging from its origin being as described in the Epic of Gilgamesh [ref] to that of the Genesis account [ref], but that it was merely a natural geological formation was not his final conclusion [ref]." Firewall (talk) 22:31, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I'm doing that. I am including a direct quote which shows his beliefs at the end -- and it seems clear to me he was not referring to just certain Christians, but that he had rejected the whole Christian/Jewish concept of Noah (who he stated was a pagan), and thought that he had found the 'real' ark and that it was Ziusudra's Barque.--Dougweller (talk) 14:35, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Doug I think you're going in the wrong direction here - the issue isn't to describe Fasold and his beliefs (that can be kept for his personal article), but to describe the site and what it contains. PiCo (talk) 15:51, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

How can you describe the site and what it contains without saying what Fasold's views of it were? He went through the gamut - Noah's Ark, no ark, Ziusudra's Ark.--Dougweller (talk) 16:05, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems that if there was any view possible to the mind of man, Fasold held it :). But that's erally about all that needs to be said - Fasold's views vacillated to the end of his life - there's no need to say more. There is need to talk about other people's views. PiCo (talk) 16:13, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Decidedly Against a Merger

I am dead set against a merger between the Durupınar site with the Searches for Noah's Ark article. This site has a separate history and sources about it. Most searches for the ark take place on Ararat. This is a horse of a different color--a significant difference, if you are versed in "Ark literature." Also, if detailed information was placed on the Searches for Noah's Ark page about all proposed ark sites, then the article would be intolerably long, and some happy editor would suggest it be split into separate articles! Keep articles like this separate. TuckerResearch (talk) 21:31, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I am not suggesting the full content of this article be kept. Only the relevant bits. Which would shorten it to a couple of sentences. I really don't see how this has any notability. It appears even the most far out creationist crackpots roll their eyes at this. But I will also be satisfied if we can redirect David Fasold and Arzap Drogue Stones articles into this one, and clean it up for WP:RS. --dab (𒁳) 15:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Like I said, I am against merging David Fasold into this article, but I am for merging the Arzap Drogue Stones article into this one. Should we get rid of the Thomas Neill Cream article and roll it into the Jack the Ripper article? I think not. Like I've noted on Fasold's talk page, his article should remain. In my opinion, of course. I know others agree with me.

Also, what do you mean that "even the most far out creationist crackpots roll their eyes at this"? Is this how you determine what gets to stay an article? Will you get rid of the evolution article because "even the most far out creationist crackpots roll their eyes at this"? I'm sure you wouldn't. The Durupınar site has a history. It was pictured in Life magazine, it was shown on Unsolved Mysteries and a few US news shows because it wasn't in the right place, i.e. Ararat. It is mentioned in multiple books as a site separate from ark searches on Ararat, where most of those eye-rolling creationists focus their time and energy. In fact, if I had my druthers, I would change the title of the Searches for Noah's Ark article into "Searches for Noah's Ark on Mt. Ararat." The Durupınar site should remain a separate article, the Ark literature demands it. TuckerResearch (talk) 06:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I realize you are against merging David Fasold. I am giving you time to build a case establishing that he meets WP:BIO. If you don't do that, I'll push for the merger regardless of your opposition: our notability guidelines are there for a reason. At present, David Fasold has: (a) a section "Durupinar site", clearly a WP:CFORK of this article, (b) a single-line section "Death" saying he died of cancer, and (c) a section "Works", all of it about the Durupinar site. I frankly don't see how you can argue David Fasold isn't a blatant CFORK of this article. dab (𒁳) 06:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Tuckerresearch that the Durupinar site article should stand on its own. The subject is not defined by David Fasold. He is but one who looked at this site. There have been others including Ron Wyatt, most notably. Research is ongoing to this day (years after Fasold's death). Last June a team was surveying the site from Anchor Stone in anticipation of a noninvasive measurement program. Organizations in the US and elsewhere are funding such efforts. Various artifacts have been found at the site which are under study/dating at U.S. and Turkish universities. All of this is quite independent of David Fasold. Your comment about "even the most far out creationist crackpots roll their eyes at this" shows how little you know about what is going on there. There are indeed creationist detractors, but most of them are convinced that the Ark of Noah must be on Mt. Ararat and can't possibly be at any other location (even when confronted with a lack of evidence to that effect). They are detractors (and roll their eyes) for that reason, not on the basis of any rigorous scientific investigation that they have conducted to disprove the Durupinar site as having any relation to the various Biblical and extraBiblical flood survivor accounts. How you can claim that this subject does not meet notability criteria is amazing, considering the number of books written on the subject area (see the reference section). I suspect we could find many much less notable Wikipedia articles that persist with NO books written about them.Firewall (talk) 05:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

you are not making sense. The point is that the notability of Fasold depends entirely on Durupinar, not the other way round. Your arguement would only be relevant if the suggestion had been to merge this article into Fasold's. I am not going to comment on the "scientific" merit of all this. This is a topic of pseudoarchaeological crackpottery, it has nothing to do with bona fide science. Wikipedia includes topics based on notability, not on grounds of their sanity. dab (𒁳) 17:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Durupinar is undoutedly crackpottery, along with Atlantis, UFOs, and the attempt to restore the House of Stuart to the throne of England. But eccentricity is no bar to a articles in magazines, online or off. The real problem with this one is that it's little more than a clone of the article on Fasold - indeed, it started life as an exact clone. If it wants to continue an independent existence, it has to get over its obsession with poor Doug and concentrate more on other matters - like the geology of the site and the attitude of local Turkish authorities (who I believe are capitalising on its tourism potential). So I'm inclined to keeping it, but only with much revision, and probably in a much shorter form - otherwise it can be rolled up into the Searches for Noa's Ark article.PiCo (talk) 02:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Merged Arzap drogue stones with this article

I think it was consensus that Arzap Drogue Stones be merged with this article. I did so and tweaked the article a bit as well, moving some things around. I would like someone to find an image of the site that is fair use to stick at the top of the article. TuckerResearch (talk) 03:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Photo

Does someone have a fair use photo of the actual site? TuckerResearch (talk) 04:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I was wondering, where the heck are the pictures? There used to be some, and since the thing shows up plain as day on Google Earth, it must be public domain. Someone put a picture up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.48.16.180 (talk) 19:24, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Drogue stones

As an old tugboat mate AND an ex cemetery worker, I'm qualified to state positively that the holes in the top of the "Drogue Stones " are too small for the weak organic rope of the ancients, to lift four to ten tons of dead weight and too close to the edge of the stone to be worn against by iron rings. Therefore, the stones are not anchors.

I'd strongly suspect they are tombstones and the hole in the top is how you'd stand it up with a pole cut from a tree branch a bit like this >---- Sort of like a crutch. The stones are at least 10 feet tall if Fasold is 5'10" tall in the picture. Dave (24.13.158.21 (talk) 04:17, 12 October 2008 (UTC))

Dave, first, the talk page isn't for hashing out theories, it is for suggestions on improvement to articles. But as to the stones, I'd recommend checking out Fasold's book from your local library. Fasold was in the merchant marine, if we're going to throw out past occupations as a form of authority, and he makes a case in his chapter on the stones that the hole is in an acceptable position. And recall, as Fasold does, they are in fact hypothesized to be drogues, not anchors. There is a distinct, and important, difference. TuckerResearch (talk) 05:44, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

And I suppose, if you are going to believe in the possibility of the flood in the first place, having an understanding of the strength of materials doesn't rank high in importance. Recent research suggests they are stones that, during the late medieval period, local Armenian villagers have taken from an unidentified megalithic site (probably similar to Karahung) to be reused as gravestones. Meowy 16:49, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

A lot of conjecture here from folks who have never investigated these stones in person... first the weight of the stones are immediately less when the weight of the displaced water is considered, second, if we are to take the Genesis as historical, then Tubal Cain was a worker of metals (iron). To assume that weak organic rope was used by the ancients is just that: an assumption... why could metal-reinforced cable have not been used? And why are these holes cut on an upward radius as if not to chafe a cable or rope? The various astronomical stones have their straight-cut holes focused on points of interest. Not so with the drogue stones of the Arzap region. Today they may indeed be in use as grave stones, but was that their original purpose? And why are all of the adjacent grave stones at Arzap (Kazan) lacking holes? There are a number of these stones that are not associated with the Arzap grave yard-- what about those? Easy dismissive answers are usually wrong answers.  ⁃ Firewall 06:08, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Folks, please let's not indulge in original research and speculation on this page, it is not a forum. And Fasold is not a reliable source (off-topic, we were in some considerable email contact before he died). Let's stick to discussing sources, please. Dougweller (talk) 07:45, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

The last paragraph in this section should be removed, the claim that Collins and Fasold found the stones to be of local origin is completely refuted by the article cited for the claim. The conclusion of the article includes the following: "When the site is again accessible to foreign investigators, the area near Kazan (Arzap) needs to be examined to see if outcrops of volcanic rocks occur there that have a mineralogy similar to that of the anchor stones. If so, a local source for the anchor stones is strongly supported." The citation for the second sentence is broken and therefore the claim is unsubstantiated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.166.165.80 (talk) 16:48, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

No, it shouldn't. (1)The article states that Fasold had sample which was analyzed. The article also reads: "Volcanic rocks similar to the andesitic 'anchor stones' occur in the area surrounding Mt. Ararat (Pearce and others, 1990). The almost total absence of volcanic rocks in Mesopotamia (now Iraq) (Pearce and others, 1990; Aswad and Elias, 1988), where Noah's Ark is alleged to have been constructed, reasonably eliminate the possibility that the anchor stones were transported to Kazan by Noah's Ark. Because of the great weight of these stones, a nearby source is much more likely." So, the authors conclude that the stones are local in origin. (Read the whole article. It's short.) (2) I fixed the broken link. So therefore, it is not unsubstantiated. (Internet Archive is a wonderful thing.) Best, TuckerResearch (talk) 23:26, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

External links

These need to be cleared up to follow our guidelines at WP:EL. I've started by removing a commercial link and an early letter from David Fasold. Those of us who were around at the time of David's death know that he repudiated the idea it was Noah's Ark, certainly on Usenet and in my case by personal email correspondence. We need far fewer external links. Remember, ideally there should be no external links in most articles. See also our NPOV policy, where WP:UNDUE clearly states "Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention overall as the majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to the view of a significant minority, or to include that of a tiny minority, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject. This applies not only to article text, but to images, wikilinks, external links, categories, and all other material as well." Dougweller (talk) 08:06, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey Dougweller, I don't disagree with your removal of these links, as I agree they were probably in excess. However, I too was "around at the time of David's death," I too trolled the Usenets, I too have "personal email correspondence" and I know that Fasold later retracted his repudiation of the site. Thus, the two cited bits in the article from Fasold associates to that effect. You seem to perpetually forget that. So, while I agree that you removed the links properly, I think your reasoning is a tad flawed, and smacks a bit of a little "original research." Both of the links you removed could have come under the commercial category, and, besides, the letter is better on the Fasold page. (Let me say, too, as an aside, I disagree with your interpretation of WP:EL when you state that "ideally there should be no external links in most articles.") I will say, we could probably stand to remove half a dozen more links from this page. Otherwise, keep up the good work. TuckerResearch (talk) 22:09, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Undue weight

Is Creation ex nihilo, a loosely edited fringe glossy magazine an appropriate source to bear the weight of characterising the opinions of most creationists? Fifelfoo (talk) 04:18, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Revertion of comments about 1985 Wyatt expeditions - dowsing device

Since one of my friends disappeared in mysterious circumstances, leaving his tent and personal effects behind, from an expedition while investigate a Noah's Ark hoax, I bring a certain need for academic or even journalistic accuracy to the subject.

In particular, I have become aware of evidence about the device used in the 1985 Wyatt survey - and had posted a critical comment - with supporting links to Creation Magazine.

This was reverted without comment - see history.

Since these facts are now widely accessible on the internet how can the redactors of this page justify leaving the article giving half the story of the 1985 Wyatt expedition?

82.132.222.244 (talk) 01:29, 25 September 2013 (UTC)IMC newby 25 Sept 2013

Dear editor, it's not what you did, it's how you did it. I've stuck it in in a better place, with less of the dripping condescension you had in it. Might I recommend:

• Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
• Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion
• Wikipedia:No synthesis of published material
• Wikipedia:Citing sources

Happy editing! TuckerResearch (talk) 04:39, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

External link that is no good

The second external link seems to be no good and looks like it should be removed.

This is the one I mean: http://www.specialtyinterests.net/the_remains_of_noahs_ark.html

User:Jackcrew 2 April 2016 (UTC)

The external links have been now quite pruned. TuckerResearch (talk) 20:15, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

What's wrong with Snopes?

Huh? TuckerResearch (talk) 20:20, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

How can a source be considered reliable if it doesn't even have a listed author? At least I can't find it. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 20:22, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

It's Snopes. Snopes is generally considered reliable. I don't see an author either, but it is a quite dismissive article about the site. It's not a whacky creationist or similar self-published website about Noah's Ark. You deleted all the articles as "self-published." Snopes is not self-published. The other external link I restored can be construed as "self-published," but to me it is fine collection of sources, images, etc. on the Durupinar site, presented fairly even-handedly. (I.e., it is informational, just as an external link should be.) I think it should stand for it's informational value. The rest were explicitly POV and self-published, so I agreed with your removal of them. TuckerResearch (talk) 20:28, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it needs to be kept *because* it is "not a whacky creationist website". Authorship is important, assigning one's name to something means taking responsibility. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 20:31, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

"Not a whacky creationist website" is not my primary argument. The fact that it is Snopes makes it a good external link. Unless you're saying that all Snopes articles should be removed from Wikipedia. Or that any website that doesn't list an author should be removed from Wikipedia. (Are you abandoning your original contention that it is "self-published"?) TuckerResearch (talk) 20:37, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

PS - When I click "snopes" under the title, it takes me to David Mikkelson's page. Author? TuckerResearch (talk) 20:41, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

It is true that my edit summary wasn't complete. Snopes does not look reliable to me, no. I'm glad you found somebody who might the author. Can we agree that this is a discussion that is about a set of relatively unimportant edits? Isambard Kingdom (talk) 20:42, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Unimportant, perhaps. (There are always more important issues on Wikipedia.) But we have an issue to resolve: so let's try to come to a consensus. No links? One link? (Keep the Snopes or keep the other?) Or two link? TuckerResearch (talk) 20:47, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

I've lost interest in discussing this with you. Sorry. Do what ever you want with respect to the links. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 20:48, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Insultingly dismissive, but, okay, then. I say stick with two. Best, TuckerResearch (talk) 20:49, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Then I apologize. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 20:55, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Think nothing of it! (Sorry to pester.) TuckerResearch (talk) 20:59, 2 April 2016 (UTC)