 |
|
|
The Mysterious Dr. John Baumgardner
The Mysterious Dr. John Baumgardner
In my research into Noah's Ark, there is one figure who's perplexity has me more baffled than the others. Baumgardner used to support the Durupinar site as being that of Noah's Ark. But when you scour the internet and make your way through Tentmaker.com, you discover that Baumgardner has deposited a statement there stating to the contrary, that he no longer believes that the site is Noah's Ark. I've looked into the question as to why Baumgardner no longer supports the site and found them wanting.
David Fasold, an investigator of the Ark, to his dying days, felt that Dr. Baumgardner did the site an injustice. According to Fasold and others, Baumgardner said that "nobody who didn't speak in tongues could be the discoverer of Noah's Ark." As interesting as that may seem, it angered Fasold and you can find his statements left on the newsgroups attacking Baumgardner for that fact.
But in terms of actual fact finding, there is little in the way to support a rational explanation as to why Dr. Baumgardner changed his mind. Baumgardner gives several other reasons, but they do not deal with the central criticism.
When asked if Dr. Baumgardner had discovered a pattern of iron on the Durupinar site, while using a metal detector, Baumgardner responded that he used a "dowsing rod" and that the Bible forbids anyone from using such a device. To which Baumgardner "forsook it." Are we led to believe that Baumgardner never used a metal detector? I asked Baumgardner regarding the use of a metal detector and at that time he quit corresponding with me. The e-mails simply stopped. Did Baumgardner, in his excitement forget that he used a metal detector? Possibly. But the fact remains that he did use one. And David Fasold's 1985-6 Noah's Ark Field Studies videos testify to that fact. Dr John Morris, from ICR, has commented on the use of a metal detector, stating that Baumgardner had not used one, but had used a "divining rod."
So, the question again, is what happened to Baumgardner's metal detector and why does he refuse to talk about it?
The Core Drillings
In one statement (September 26, 1996) Baumgardner claims that core drillings were the key to his change in mind. He wrote:
"...The core drilling we performed in 1988 settled the issue as far as I am concerned - the site is a natural formation, nothing more..."
So what in fact do we know about the core drillings that convinced Baumgardner? Baumgardner hasn't written a paper on it. But he did state in his newsletter, "a Search of the Elusive Ark", the following(August 19,1988):
"However, core drilling is severely limited in its ability to find buried archaeological structure, especially if it is sparsely distributed and has been significantly altered by decay and chemical weathering."
So the question becomes, what exactly did Baumgardner find that convinced him that the formation was not Noah's Ark? He admits that core samples is "severely limited" in it's ability to find archaeological structure, so we wonder just exactly what he had found. We do know that he found limonite in the core samples. He says, further, in his newsletter:
"Another notable discovery was the presence at three locations in the mudflow layer of nodules of the bright yellow mineral limonite. Limonite is the hydrated oxide of iron, and its occurence in this environment is highly anomalous. Just how anomalous is the crucial question, since the minerals in the rocks in the source area of the mudflow have a moderate iron content. However, during the months now that I have worked at the site, I have never seen this bright yellow material anywhere in the fissures or exposures in the mudflow clay. Because earlier investigations led us to suspect unusual amounts of iron in site, these occurrences of limonite are of special interest because they could represent the rusted remains of metallic iron objects."
Core Conclusions
Baumgardner claims that the core drillings "settled" the issue, thus proving to himself that the site is a natural formation. However, he states that core drillings are "severely limited in its ability to find buried archaelogical structures." Baumgardner never explains how the cores form the core of his rejection of the Ark. We also do not know why the positive readings on limonite are now thrown out as evidence for the Durupinar being the site of a manmade object, and nor do we know why Baumgardner refuses to talk about his work with a metal detector (see the link on Field Studies video). John Morris says that Dr. John Baumgardner hadn't used a metal detector, yet the Field Studies video of 85-6 clearly proves otherwise. If anyone wishes to use Baumgardner as proof that the Durupinar site isn't Noah's Ark, he needs to go see a psychiatrist. Speaking of which, the Tentmaker site refuses to correct Baumgardner's statements even after a video of the 1985-6 Field Studies had been sent to them free of charge.
Wyatt Critics
Wyatt Defense
Video: Metal detection scans
Scholar supports Noah's Ark
2007 Noah's Ark Field Studies video
Send E-Mail to: jm20000000@hotmail.com
Copyright © 2007 John McCoy. All Rights Reserved