An Impression of Noah’s Ship or an Anomaly
Located due west of Noah’s shipyard and memorial, and at about the same elevation, is a site some consider to be an impression of Noah’s ship in a mudflow near Dogubeyazit, Agri, Turkey- the Durupinar formation in the Tendurek Mountains. A nice satellite view of this site is available on Google Earth. Although very skeptical, even at first glance, this impression does have the shape of a ship and deserves a close look.
A soil sample study and general analysis of the Durupinar Site done years earlier had been reported by Dr. William H. Shea. Soil samples show higher than normal concentrations of carbon in the immediate area. Dr Shea, in an unbiased study, considered the claims made about the site plausible but inconclusive. The size of the impression seemed too large. Now that better overhead images are available, a much better visual analysis can be conducted.
While attempting to measure the length and width of the impression in Turkey using Google Earth tools, other interesting shapes became visible. There is much more at this site than first meets the eye. This shape is not just an anomaly. As will be shown, it is obvious something shaped like a ship moved down the hill with the mudflow. It made other impressions, and waves, as it moved. This flow looks to have had the consistency and liquidity of freshly poured concrete- concrete straight out of the truck.
(Please note: the Google Earth images shown are of low resolution. High resolution was available on a computer monitor even with the free version of Google Earth. Although viewable in high-resolution, Google Earth did not allow printing high-resolution images with their free version. I do not own the pro version of Google Earth and it would appear that they no longer allow any high-resolution images with their free version.)
Please see Figure 3f for a satellite view of the Tendurek site in Turkey. Then, in Figure 3g, the view in Figure 3f is marked to show the waves made as the “ship” surged along down the hill. Also, notice the planked looking object that has been dragged along as the “ship” moved. This looks like an attached gangway or possibly a section of planking that had sprung loose from the ships side. In addition, there are three spots that follow this motion and appear to have been made by water pouring out of the “ship‘s “middle.
Figure 3g. The Tendurek Site=Durupinar marked to show waves made by the motion of the ship-shaped object. As the flow stopped moving, the object continued to move a bit- hence the waves downstream. In addition, a planked piece (gangway?) has been dragged along with the objects motion.
Now, in Figure 3h, by drawing in a ship-shape on top of the satellite image and then moving the shape, the motion of this ship-shaped object is clear. Motion is down the hill or left to right in the satellite image. This analysis shows that the object buoyed up at the uphill end, slid down the hill a bit, then swung around coming to final rest at the most prominently seen ship-shape. This motion is precisely what one should expect. This motion completely explains irregularities in the final shape. The ship or canoe shaped object superimposed on the satellite image (by me) has dimensions of 475x100ft and is consistent with the biblical dimensions of Noah’s ship. With the keel raised up (as will be explained), the sides might be leaned outward making the ship appear wider in the impression.
(Note: the biblical dimensions of the ship are 300×50 cubits. No matter what modern measurement should be assigned to Noah’s forearm length, a ratio of 6 to 1 should be obtainable for the ship‘s length to width. I assumed the width in Figure 3h would be exaggerated as the ship re-floated in this flow (see Figure 5). I picked a 100 foot width. The drawing might be improved by reducing the width to the actual proportionate width of about 80 feet. That translates into a 19-inch cubit. This is a tedious drawing to make but the alternative dimensioning is coming. I am awaiting clearer images.)
Figure 3i. A structurally decayed ship refloated by mudflow and the resulting impression left in the mud.
Nevertheless, based solely on the impressions made as the dimensionally correct object moved in the flow with an uplifted centerline, it is reasonable to say that the intact object was a deteriorated ship and it floated in a mudflow. It is reasonable but not proof. These ideas are not based on anything falsified- certainly not by me.
The same claims are credible for anyone with knowledge of shipbuilding, a computer monitor, and access to satellite images.
In addition to those he published, I received a hand drawn image in the mail from Dr. Shea of the Durupinar Site in Turkey. I had sent him an early manuscript with my drawings overlaying the satellite images (as already shown) that explain the odd shape and size of the ship shaped impression there. He returned my image, Figure 3f, with his drawings added. His added drawings show large-scale script drawn on the ground at the Durupinar Site. The drawings on the ground illustrate the flood event and show named figures occupying Noah’s ship (see Appendix A for Dr. Shea’s drawing as sent to me). Similar to those at the burial sites already mentioned, the images and writings depict Noah, his family, Noah’s ship, and more. The symbols at the Durupinar Site include named heads occupying the ship including ADONAY, YAHWEY, Noah, Shem, Ham, and Japheth. The heads of four wives are drawn within the ship as well but are unnamed. Also drawn and named are Lamek and his wives Adah and Zyllah- but they are not shown occupying the ship. It has been assumed that Lamek, Adah, and Zillah, of Cain’s lineage helped in the ship’s construction but could not board the ship at the flood’s beginning.
Clearly, the four sites including the shipyard, tombs, and mudflow are related by a common set of ancient writings that depict the biblical flood. This is solid archaeological evidence. A group of ancients visited those sites and at each site made drawings and writings; drawings and writings that are similar and most that depict Noah’s flood and all that name the men on Noah’s ship. This is the last of four sites with drawings and writings as previously discussed. Again, similar writings are found marking Shem’s tomb at Noah’s shipyard=Zorats Karer=Karahunj, Japheth’s tomb at the Tatev Monastery, and Noah’s burial site at Lake Qare (Qari).
An application of Ockham’s razor to the findings of this site clearly suggests that the simplest and therefore the best conclusion is that this was where Noah’s ship landed. Assuming it landed there, how did it get there? More evidence follows.