The question the world is asking is whether the NAMI site is the real Noah's Ark?  We do not yet have 100% conclusive evidence that it is Noah's Ark.  There are no ship nameplates, there are no inscriptions that we are aware of, that mention Noah and we have not located the huge entry door that the animals entered.  But what else could it be?  By conservative estimates it is likely well over 450 feet long, and probably over 500 feet long.  A huge wooden structure built like a boat resting under 5 to 30 feet of debris, between approximately 14,000 feet and 15,000 feet elevation.  In this location building a road to it is practically impossible.  With all our research, we are convinced that the NAMI site is the real Noah's Ark.  We find nothing to dispell that belief. We have reports this site has been plundered by people through out the ages including a popular scientific company with its well known magazine.  Because it is so large and so difficult to reach there is still quite a bit there.

Anytime there ever has been a significant archaeological find, there are skeptics.  And there should be legitimate skeptics to help insure new published data is clean and true.   Just the thought of being disgraced by publishing false data is a deterrent for some wanting fame and recognition.  However there is still a large number of things published that are false and there are many things said about things published that are false.   People have a reason for what they say or publish.  For some it is to get the truth out.  For others it is plunder, pride, prestige, money, jealousy, self justification, deadlines, peer pressure, and the list goes on and on.

We find those claiming the NAMI site a fraud, all have their roots in money and fame.  Those claiming fraud had a vested interest in claiming what they did.  Shouldn't evidence instead be based on scientifif fact?

Claims based on money, emotions, pet beliefs, retaliation, ignorance, hate, personal or business agendas etc, none of those constitute real evidence.  When one is determining what is true, that it is important that our conclusion is based upon accurate data and logical scientific protocol.  What is amazing is, if there ia a fraud claim on something Biblical, the dishonest side of human nature seems to be working overtime.  Honest scientific research is often discarded in favor of promoting personal agendas, especially money.  There is no conflict between God and true science.   When you look at the different claims, in detail, of what is or isn't Noah's Ark, some respected sources have tossed out common sense and scientific protocol.  It appears that rather than seeking truth, they promote themselves and their own unsupported pet beliefs and agendas.   The Bible calls that false witness.  Very similar to how the scribes, lawyers and Pharisees in Jerusalem rejected, condemned, and murdered their own messiah sent from God.  We will examine several examples in a bit. 

The following excerpt by Dr. Geisler is well written.  While he did not actually visit the NAMI site, he had a common sense response to it.

Dr. Norman Geisler sums up why the (NAMI) discovery on Mt. Ararat can’t be a hoax:

The cumulative case of the following factors makes it virtually impossible that it is a hoax.

1.  It is too old. It is built from timber that has been radiocarbon and archaeologically dated to the time of Noah (3rd millennium B.C.)
2.  It is too high. Part of the structure is found at 15,000 feet in the permanent snow cap, far above the tree line and too high to construct the structure that has been found there.
3. It is too deeply buried. Under 20-30 feet of frozen volcanic rock and ice. Sub-freezing temperatures make it virtually impossible to construct a large ship under those conditions.
4. It is too unstable and dangerous in its location. One site leans precariously on a ledge, another on the side of a glacier slowing moving down the mountain. Large rocks regularly tumble down the mountain burying the structure and threatening the life of workers.
5. It is too big. It is in at least two pieces which together appear to be about the size of Noah’s Ark (450 feet long). Dragging that much timber that high, fabricating and assembling all the intricate wooden joints is too much for this this height (elevation) and temperature.
6. It is too complicated. It has a bowed hull, three decks, numerous square deep wooden joints for square wooden nails, tongue and grooved joined boards with evidence of handcraft: too intricate and complex to construct under difficult conditions.
7. It is too antique. It antique construction unfamiliar to modern Noah’s Ark Replica builders: wooden nails, mortice-and-tenon joints, and ancient ladders.
8. It is too advanced. It contains advanced wheel-made pottery from Noah’s time (Early Bronze), not the primitive technology that many attribute to the time of Noah.
9. It is too ancient. Surface patina on it does not exist on recently fabricated boards, and there is no known way to fabricate it.
10. It was not quickly constructed. Noah and his family worked on level ground for perhaps 120 years. But no one could build this big ship on a high mountain under these seemingly impossible conditions in the few weeks per year after melt water stops flowing and before winter snow prevents access to the site.

Dr. Geisler names 10 reasons but there are many, many more.

We are also amazed at the number of people, organizations, and ministries that have come out declaring the NAMI site to be a hoax or a fraud.  We are in an ongoing research of those claims.  To date, we have not found even one fraud or hoax claim that would hold up in a real court of law.  Not even one.  

Those declaring the NAMI site to be false, fall into two types.   Those making the actual accusations and those that parrot or echo those accusations.  You ultimately are the judge.  Examine the evidence.  It is self evident. 

Table of Contents

Noah's Ark Sites

Noah's Ark in Iran? (no it is just a rock formation)

Rebuttal to Fraud or Hoax Claims: 

Research is underway to try to prove the validity of the fraud claims for the NAMI.  We have reviewed a mountain of evidence.  It is not looking good for any of these listed below.  Everybody makes mistakes including you and me.  However the Bible says those that lead or teach will be judged harder when they intentionally mislead.  In time I am convinced that the evidence will prove that these were the fraudsters.  These first five declared to the world that the NAMI site was a fraud.  We will examine what the said.  The next two echoed the fraud claims without properly proving the validity of those claims.  Not good, even though other things they have done have been educational to the church.  The end result result whether they declarie or echo these false claims, has been the viscous assination of the NAMI ministry.  Saying you are professional or Christian and assinating those promoting truth is just not good.

• Dr. Patton
• Dr. Price
• National Geographic
• Ryan Mauro
• Dr Amy Beam

• Ark Encounter
•  Answers in Genesis

Noah's Ark Sites

There are six sites that have gained some public acceptance, over the years. as being the site of Noah's Ark.  Four of those the public now considers as not plausible.  The two remaining sites are the NAMI site (made known by NAMI, Noah's Ark Ministries International) and the Durapinar site.  The Durupinar site Ron Wyatt got the Turkish government to declare as the site of Noah's Ark in 1987.  Then in 2005 The Turkish government declared to the world that the Durupinar site was just a rock formation. 

I have a hard time understanding why the Durapinar site is still often accepted.  It clearly is just a rock formation.  Look closely at the rock ridge that is supposed to be the ark's hull on the middle right side of the picture, then look at the next ridge to the right of that.  They are both the same type of rock.   The other ridges of rock around the Durapinar site are also the same rock as the rock that is supposed to be the hull of the ark.  Wyatt claimed that the rock replaced the wood.  Cute but not a scientific statement.   A rock ridge in the shape of a boat, doesn't make it a boat.  Some have claimed that this formation or site became visible 30 - 40 years ago when there was earthquakes and floods.  I do not find such a statement as believable.  It is more believable that this area has looked like this for thousands of years.  Also it is not a flood zone.  Erosion and earthquakes do not make it look this. See pics below.

For a n excellent geology report on the Durupinar site by Lorence Gene Collins, a retired geology professor from California State University Northridge, clich HERE.

Is it possible that the Durapinar site proves that God is alive and maybe has a sense of humor?  Let me explain.  Only a living God would create a rock formation about the size of Noah's Ark, approximately 7 miles from Mt. Ararat.  Such a rock formation would divert gullible people away from the real Noah's Ark.  Also such a rock formation would bring attention to the subject of Noah's Ark, but in the process, the real Noah's ark is left alone and preserved, safe from looters and vandals. Just a thought.

God said "And the ark rested in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, upon the mountains of Ararat." Genesis 8:4  

In modern terms, we would consider Mt. Ararat as a single mountain.  We would also conside Little Ararat as a separate mountain.  See pic at right.  The word "mountains" in the scriptures is defined as mountains such as in a chain of mountains or since Mt. Ararat is a single mountain, it would be better defined as the high hills or ridges and valleys of Mt. Ararat. The NAMI site fits the Biblical description perfectly.  Since the Durapinar site is several miles to the southwest completely away from Mt. Ararat, it does not fit the Bible's stated location.   

Fraud Claims about the NAMI Site?

We try to avoid engaging in publicly exposing the sins of others.  We also despise it when Christians unjustly have had their reputation assassinated by either other Christians or non-Christians.   In Christ we should work to build others up.  When a brother or sister's reputation is intentionally destroyed publicly with false accusations we should expose or reprove those responsible.   Yes there are inmature or carnal people in the church that have done these things.

"have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them."    (Eph 5:11)

Archeologists Dr Don Patton, Dr Randal Price and Dr. Amy Beam all publicly claim the NAMI site is a fraud.  Both men claim to be Christians.  What is interesting is appears it none of these Dr. Patton, Dr Price, or Dr. Amy Beam have ever actually visited the real NAMI site.  Read what a Harvard educated archaeologist Dr. Joel Klenck posted online about these three HERE.

Different reports say that Dr. Beam had a company selling tours to search for Noah's Ark.  She hired both Dr Price and Dr Patton to lead those tours.  Initially The NAMI group invited Dr. Patton and Dr Price to be part of their team as archeologists.  After some consideration, it appears the NAMI group didn't feel they could trust these guys, so they shut them out.

Consider yourself in this situation.  Youre making good money conduction tours trying to find Noah's Ark on Mt Ararat.  Then NAMI claims to have located Noah's Ark, but you don't know where.  The people now want to go to the site that NAMI revealed and you cannot take them there.  You were shut out of NAMI.

What would happen to your customerss?  They wouldn't now go with you because you couldn't take them to the NAMI site.  That brought Dr Beam, Dr. Patton, and Dr Price's business to almost nothing.  Everything points to these trhee retaliating by claiming the NAMI site a fraud.   

In Dr Price's private communications that were not intended to be released to the general public, Dr Price admits NAMI is in competition to him.  

We welcome any of those claiming that the NAMI site is a fraud to provide further evidence that we can research.  Our request to date for them to provide that "evidence" has had no response except we have had responses from some organizations that were just repeating their opinion.  Believing someone else's opinion without vetting the issues has destroyed NAMI's reputation.  People seldom study things out to determine if what is presented is true.  This is especially true when it comes from what could be considered a professional source.  People are slowly realizing that some professional sources will intentionally lie.  Have you listened to the mainstream news lately?

Let's look at their claims in detail.

Dr. Patton

The evidence video released by Dr Patton, is just not even believable.  He has doctored his evidence photos and never mentions it.  He has falsely identified locations.  He has falsely created sample(s) that does not match the NAMI site.  Most would consider Dr Patton as the actual fraudster.  Dr Patton claims to be a Christian yet he assassinates other Christians with these disingenuous claims?   The question is why?   After NAMI and Parasut learned who he was, they would not show Dr. Patton the site.  Is Dr. Patton's video is retaliation because he was shut out by NAMI and Parasut as they believed they couldn't trust him? 

You examine the issues and decide as the public is the final judge.  We have a copy of Dr Patton's video which you can view for yourself by clicking the pic at right.  We have included the time location references to save you time.

1.  (at 0:12-0:17 minutes)

This is an evidence video and as such it should only include factual information.  This shows an image of Dr Patton on or near a mountain top.  But no it really doesn't.  Instead here is an image of Dr Patton that has been cut out and floated over the top of the image of a mountain, but not the top.  You can tell as the video plays, it zooms in and the picture of Dr Patton floats over the mountain picture.  Sometimes the best way to see that they are two images, one on top of another, is to watch his feet.  Does this prove anything?  No, he just wants you to think that he was there and clearly he is not in that original mountain picture.  He does not indicate he embellished the picture.

2.  (at 0:30-0:50 minutes)

Here Dr Patton is standing at the base of Mt Ararat in Turkey and there is snow on the ground at these lower elevations.  So if there is snow at the lower elevations, then the weather at that time of year can be very unpredictable and vicious at high mountain elevations.  Dr Patton is supposed to be a trained, experienced, professional archeologist.  He should be old enough and educated enough to not go to the top of the mountain without being properly prepared.  He says this picture was taken just after his second trip in two weeks.    He says he was stranded overnight in severe high winds without protection in sub zero temperatures.  Yet he shows no wind burns or red face.  Again does this prove anything?  No, except maybe a lack of good judgement and the possibility he may have never actually gone up there. 

3.  (at 0:40-0:50 minutes)

He puts the date of 14 September 2010 on his video.  Remember that date as it will be important later.

4.  (at 1:29-1:47 minutes)

He claims this board is a piece of wood from the site that was claimed to be Noah's Ark (by NAMI).  Two issues here 1. the board, and 2. the site.  Both are bogus.  We will examine both of these just a little later.  With all the data from multiple sources, it is impossible to believe Dr Patton ever actually was at the NAMI site.   Throughout Dr Patton's so called evidence video, we see what appears to be this same board 4 different times.  Dr Patton's bord is a different type of wood than than the wood at the NAMI site. Dr Patton's board is also burnt to make it black.  None of the wood at the NAMI site is burnt.  Some wood at the NAMI site is covered in a black substance, but again, none is burnt. When you view the two videos of The Man Who Found Noah's Ark (link opens in new window, then see videos at bottom of new page) one realizes Parasut did not trust Dr Patton nor Dr Price.  Notice his looking down and to the side when he talks. He doesn't use that mannerism in his other videos on other archilogical discussions.  Shifty eyes can mean a lack of confidence and not telling the truth.

5. (at 1:29-2:07 minutes)

Dr Patton says he doesn't believe that accessibility is the reason NAMI and Parasut were not revealing the location of the NAMI site.  This would also cause us to believe Dr Patton was never at the actual NAMI site.  The video at 2:07 minutes by the sun's shadows would indicate that it was taken on the northern side of the mountain.  The NAMI site is not on the northern side of the Mt. Ararat.  Parasut shut out anyone he didn't trust.  Dr. Patton claims he was at the NAMI site but shows NO evidence that he was. Is it possible Dr Patton didn't want to admit that NAMI and Parasut likely didn't trust him.   This video is September 2010, The NAMI Expedition was 2009.

6.

 Here Dr Patton says this site is on a glacier on a very steep mountainside and the glacier is rapidly traveling down the hill.  Later in the video Dr Patton says the Noah's Ark movie set  was breaking up and in just a few months would  be gone forever.  This statement poses a conflict with reality and other more credible eye witness accounts.   While there are glaciers on the mountain, Philip Williams and archeologist Jeroen Rensen's expeditions visited the NAMI site in 2014 and it had not broken up, nor slid down the mountain since the NAMI visits in 2008 and 2009.  Rensen's documentation is published on youtube.  There are other reports of the NAMI site visited in 2021 but that report has not yet been fully verified.

7.

 Again Dr Patton claims that it was a movie set that the NAMI group visited.  Dr Patton says that he believes the people of NAMI were probably deceived.  They didn't realize that they were at a movie set.  Track with me for a moment, I have never seen anyone on a movie set that didn't realize within a reasonable time that it was a movie set. Have you?

8.

 Dr Patton says there is now nothing to be seen as it has all slid down the mountain in a fast moving glacier.  Yet as stated above, other expeditions have been there in 2014 and later.   Why would he say this?  Maybe because he sees himself in competition to NAMI???

9.

 Dr Patton claims this picture is the same as the NAMI location and that is NOT the same location.  See details HERE.  The wood Dr Patton claims is from the NAMI site movie set is softwood and it appears that all the wood shown in the NAMI sit appears to be hardwood, maybe like oak.

10.

 Again Dr Patton says that  the NAMI photos he shows are in the bottom of a crevasse.  Not true see number 9 above.

11.

 Notice the top right photo Dr Patton borrowed from the NAMI data.   in Dr Patton used a NAMI photo that has the wood being photoshopped or doctored black to make it look like the fake burnt board Dr Patton claims came from his fake movie set.

12.

 Finally Dr Patton provides a possible motivation for all Dr Pattons fake evidence.  A professional wouldn't be jealous of NAMI would he???

13.

 Nowhere in the huge amount of NAMI data does NAMI show or represent this location as having anything to do with the NAMI site.

14.

 Dr Patton claims that the NAMI data came from a cave about 50 miles from Mt Ararat.  Yet this is the same construction that Dr Patton eludes to as the movie set on Mt Ararat - see section 11 above.  Dr Patton has no evidence, none, to support his claim that the cave was 50 miles from Mt Ararat.  Also that is sure unusual construction for inside a cave???  Also Dr Patton shows the picture of the cave researched by NAMI and that NAMI never said was the actual site.

15.

Dr Patton claims this board was recovered from his movie set site.  There are so many things wrong with this claim from Dr Patton. 

It appears that the same board was use in all of his so call evidence pictures. 

In none of those in place pics do you see any other sign of wood.  

Dr Patton's board is burnt.  None of the wood in any of the NAMI pictures or video is burnt.  Remember the NAMI photo that was doctored or photoshopped to make it look black to match Dr Pattons board?

Dr. Patton shows the cross section where his board was cut.  It shows only extremely minor water exposure on the outside of the board.  Yet he shows where he supposedly found the board in the middle of a little creek.  Even a week in the water would have shown in that cross section cut.   Dr Patton  was there in 2010 yet according to Dr Patton the movie set had to have been constructed in early 2008.  That means Dr Patton's board would have been exposed to water and weather the remainder of the summer of 2008, the summer of 2009, and the summer through to early September of 2010.  Dr Pattons board, shows no sign of that having such water exposure or intrusion.   

The most logical conclusion is Dr Patton's board was dropped into those two ditches so he could take pics of it. 

The big question is why and maybe the answer is in what Dr Patton says at the 12th tag.  Dr Patton admits he got shut out because Parasut and NAMI didn't trust him.  People can get nasty when they are shut out or not accepted.  That is just the old human nature acting up.

As our modern culture rarely reads or studies things out.  We would prefer that each visitor looks at our included data enough that they come to their own conclusions as to what is true.  We are, up to this point, convinced that the NAMI site is the real Noah's Ark.  There are sophisticated arguments on both sides and both look good until you break them down.  Then the existing claims of fraud and fake data become the laughing stock of intelligent reasoning people.  This article will clearly break those down as we see them with supporting evidence.

In the event of NAMI claiming that they are 99% sure the large wooden structure high on Mt Ararat is Noah's Ark, there are realities that need to be taken into account for both those that want to verify it and those that want to disprove it.  Without taking the real issues into account, all you have left is baseless opinions.   People have gotten quite sophisticated in their methods to get others to believe that their mere opinions are from an authoritative source.