G. Edward Griffin supports "Bogus" Noah's Ark?

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member.
I note that G. Edward Griffin sells this 1993 video, which he wrote and narrated, at his website:

G. Edward Griffin said:
This is not the sensationalized program aired on CBS in 1993 which depicted Noah’s Ark protruding from the ice on Mt. Ararat. That program was later shown to have been based on falsified stories, myth, and bogus documents. This is the real Ark site!
Noah’s Ark has been found. Here is the evidence, including photographs. You can visit the site yourself, and you won’t have to climb into a glacier to get there!

Here are the facts. It is in Turkey 17 miles from Mt. Ararat on a gentle slope at the 6000-foot elevation. It is a man-made object and was clearly designed as a boat. It incorporates principles of higher mathematics and advanced hydrodynamics. It contains decks and interior chambers. It is the proper dimension for the Ark. It is in the proper geographical location. It is accompanied by large, anchor stones of an appropriate size. It has been visited by religious pilgrims for thousands of years. It is consistent with the Bible, the Torah, and the ancient clay tablets from Sumer. And it is surrounded by mountains and villages which carry names from antiquity relating to the Ark’s landing.

This program was written and narrated by G. Edward Griffin. It is based upon the book, The Ark of Noah, by David Fasold and includes testimony by Mr. Fasold, author Donald Patten, marine engineer Sam Windsor, and archaeologist Marvin Luckerman. 60-minutes.

However, David Fasold in 1996 co-authored this paper which refuted his previous claims :
David Fasold said:
Evidence from microscopic studies and photo analyses demonstrates that the supposed Ark near Dogubayazit is a completely natural rock formation. It cannot have been Noah's Ark nor even a man-made model. It is understandable why early investigators falsely identified it. The unusual boat-shaped structure would so catch their attention that an eagerness to be persons who either discovered Noah's Ark or confirmed its existence would tend to override caution. An illustration of the degree to which caution was disregarded by supporters of the Noah's Ark hypothesis is shown by the mistaken identification of a metamorphosed peridotite with crinkle folds as either gopherwood bark or casts of fossilized reeds that supposedly once covered the Ark (Wyatt, 1994). Furthermore, if the Creationism Flood hypothesis were valid (Baumgardner, 1985, 1990), the "dead animals" represented by fossils in this limestone must have died in the supposed Flood, and these fossilized remains are found in channels that cut the supposed Ark. Therefore, the supposed Ark is older than the deposits of the supposed Noachian Flood, and this relationship in itself conclusively refutes the hypothesis that the structure is the preserved remnants of the Ark.

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. Lacking this information for this article, however, in no way negates the conclusion that the boat-shaped rock formation is totally natural.

Finally, David Fasold suggested that, although the structure is not Noah's Ark, it may very well be the site which the ancients regarded as the ship of the Deluge and may have played a role in the Flood story. As a geologist, I find this to be a interesting speculation.

Considering that 15 years have elapsed since Fasold repudiated his earlier claims, I find it interesting that Griffin continues to advertise and sell this video for $19.95. This does not inspire confidence that Griffin may some day repudiate his support for the chemtrails hoax.


Ross Marsden

Senior Member.
On the other hand:

Unfiltered News, 2011 JUNE 24 – JULY 1 UNFILTERED FORUM

2011 June 8 from Ross Marsden
Hi Ed,
I am concerned about what you are doing here in light of what you have done so far and who you have associated yourself with. The reason is this. If you do this [chemtrail vs. contrail] project honestly and properly, you will come to the conclusion that the trails, short, medium length, broken, horizon to horizon, narrow, wide... are all contrails. All of them. Because that is what they are. True. You will become a skeptic again and you will have to do a massive climbdown and apologise to the debunkers and the people you misled, alike. Are you really ready to do that?

Hello Ross.
I am always prepared to acknowledge the truth, even if it means admitting I have been wrong in the past. I used to believe that the Federal Reserve was a government agency acting in my best interest. I used to believe that most politicians in high office are honorable. I used to believe everything I heard on TV news programs was true. I used to believe that the health industry was motivated primarily by a desire to cure disease. I used to believe that those with scientific degrees would never alter data in exchange for job security. I used to believe that aircraft trails are all contrails. Obviously, I am prepared to change my view if truth requires it.

Now... We wait.


Senior Member.
I doubt Griffin would ever admit to being wrong about chemtrails, since he would lose out financially. Not to mention he would incur the wrath of Hilder and Murphy too, who i am sure are still hoping to make more cash from their chemmie cinematic farce!

Related Articles