NOAH’S ARK IN OHIO

NOAH’S ARK IN OHIO?
The ruins of Noah’s Ark lie in the mountains of eastern Turkey, once called Anatolia, and
regarded by skeptics as a myth, as are all biblical stories among these same skeptics. The main
problem they have is that many other cultures and civilizations such as the Sumerians,
Babylonians, Chinese, Indians and Mayans not to mention many others, all have the same or
very similar story as a part of their cultural histories. The story of the ark cannot merely be
arrogantly consigned to “biblical myth,” written by wandering tribsemen 3,500 years ago in
the Sinai desert. Now, the evidence for it’s actual existence has been presented. The first two
cities of our cvilization have been discovered nearby the ark remains. In May of 1948, after a
series of earthquakes, the hulk of its impression mold rose up out of the ground as liquifaction
caused the surrounding terrains to disintigrate and fall. Reshit Sarihan, a local Kurdish-
Turkish farmer was its discoverer. In 1960 Life magazine showed photographs of the ark
impression to the world. A UPI writer in Ankara mistakenly announced to the world that the
ark had been found “on Mount Ararat” seventeen miles to the north commencing many ark
hunting expeditions up that formidable mountain. And so goes the confusion. But to claim “the
Ark of Noah is in Ohio” seems, at first blush, to add to the confusion rather than help.
Above is a recent ( 2007 ) high resolution satellite
photo of the ark mold near the village of Uzengili, Agri
Turkey. The villagers of Nasar ( town’s old name )
changed it in 1948 when they saw the soft earthen image
of a giant man 530 feet in length lying in profile in the
ark. Thinking of the Arabic myth of the giant Uzengil ( a
Paul Bunyan type character ) they changed the ancient
name of their village to Uzengili, meaning, “it belongs to
Uzengil.”
Left, is a NATO aerial mapping photo from 1959 showing
the ark mold as it then existed, with little erosion from
seasonal snow run-off.
PHOTOGRAPH COURTESY OF HOUSTON McCULLOCH
In 1860, this infamous artifact was found in a burial site under a pyramidal tumulous of
melon sized rocks, 45 feet high and 500 feet in perimeter measurement. It is about 8” in length
and made of some very dark stone. As you must realize, this is an unwanted stepsister of an
artifact, totally rejected by the American academics. Pure fraud, “as any fool can plainly see,’ as
Al Capp’s cartoon character Little Abner might have pronounced. Another rejected artifact by the
establishment skeptics. This one happens to have the biblical 10 Commandments wrapped
around its sides in an inscription of very readable Hebrew letters, of a type utilized for grave
monuments in Palestine from a period of time 2000 years ago. So again we see the skeptics
reject it since it smacks of the Bible as usual. But what is striking to this author is its similarity
in overall design and specific details to the Ark of Noah remains at 6,500 feet above sea level in
far eastern Anatolia.
One might ask, “How could this be?” “How could a 2000 year old artifact have arrived in
North America from Anatolia at such a remote time?” Indeed, how could this have occurred
unless there were others and unless it is set against a background of a Hebrew culture among
the enigmatic Mound Builders? This, in and of itself, is not a problem. Phoenicians had the
ships, the maritime technology and knowledge, and the Mound Builders, their client passengers,
were called “Taligewi” by the Lene Lenapi ( Deleware ) indians who fought and prvailed over
them. Tel is “mound” in Hebrew and “teli” is equivilent to “mounds.” The next word “gewi”
means “nation’ and more commonly pronounced “goyee” meaning “nations.” Hebrew was their
language. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it must be a duck.
So we will now compare the two artifacts, and we shall see the likelihood of no relationship is
on the mathematical order of one hundred million to one against such an idea, meaning the
likelihood for a relationship is of the same order of magnitude. They are related in concept.
So here we have an old world artifact, uncovered in 1860 from and Ohio ruin. What do we
say or do about it? Do we reject it as the academics have done? Or do we reject the academics?
As for me I do the latter with enthusiasm and pity.
David Allen Deal Vista California 2008
http://www.noahsark-naxuan.com