What do you think?
Rate this book
The Ark File
No other object mentioned in the annals of ancient history and mythology has so stirred the imagination of amateur archaeologists as the ship known to us as Noah's ark. In The Ark File, the author has traced the almost unbelievable tale of research and frustration that has accompanied the modern search for it. Is the story of Noah's ark and the Flood a mere myth, or is it possibly the agonizing account of a survivor of the greatest tragedy ever to befall mankind? This book presents the answers connected with this age-old mystery.
- GenresChristian
208 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1974
16 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews
February 26, 2025
A RECOUNTING, AND COMMENTARY, ON A NUMBER OF SEARCHES FOR THE ARK
Author Rene Noorbergen wrote in the Introduction to this 1974 book, “It remained for Dr. A.J. Smith, dean of the People’s Bible School … to initiate the modern search for the most controversial artifact historians have ever recorded---Noah’s ark. Smith’s Sacred History Reseaerch Expedition’s probe on Mount Ararat in 1949 started a chain reaction of investigations all aimed at locating the remains of the ark… Dr. Smith became convinced that even though his expedition failed in its mission, the ark had to be there… Smith’s devoted persistence has become the cause for the feverish Ararat activity which has continued since his 1949 expedition… The later editor of a leading journal … reportedly commented, ‘If the ark of Noah is ever discovered, it will be the greatest archaeological find in human history, and the greatest event since the resurrection of Christ. It will alter all the currents of scientific thought.'" (Pg. 8-9)
He tells the story of a number of previous ‘searches.’ He says of the testimony of Col. Alexander Koor, “As nice as it would be to have complete confidence in this account, there are several disturbing factors… Why, for example, did Colonel Koor wait until 1945 before submitting his knowledge about the whereabouts of the ark to public scrutiny?... Arriving in the United States in the early 20s as a Russian escapee, he was undoubtedly in need of both friends and money; yet he practically sat on the greatest story of all time, completely ignoring its value in a Christian land… It seems possible that he could have ‘borrowed’ the ‘New Eden’ account and enlarged on it with details that could only be added by someone familiar with the territory … having served in the Ararat region during the first world war…he was a man who already possessed the basic ingredients for a great story…. As much as Colonel Koor’s ‘Rosseya’ article rests on hearsay and possible fantasy, so my judgment rests on a suspicion of plagiarism and faith in the unfailing sequence found in the law of cause and result---‘New Eden’ being the cause, ‘Rosseya’ the result.” (Pg. 96)
Of the 19th century account by Prince Nouri (archdeacon of Babylon and apostolic leader of Nestorian Christians), he provides background: “While in San Francisco he fell into the hands of thieves who robbed him… To cover up their crime, they cast him into the [Napa California Insane Asylum]…’ (Pg. 99) He lists the honorific titles used by Nouri (e.g., ‘His Pontifical Eminence ’ ‘Grand Apostolic Ambassador,’ etc.), and comments, “The use of these titles suggests that Christian humility was not the outstanding trait of the Prince… Even if his claim to have located Noah’s ark was true, this display of conceit and pride from the 28-year-old… assuredly alienated the assembled clergymen in Chicago.” (Pg. 100) A female missionary told Noorbergen, “The greatest part of him is his supernatural conceit. He claims to have been put wrongfully in an insane asylum in California, but it is very easy to believe that he may have been insane.’” (Pg. 100)
He concludes, “It is difficult to believe that the thieves who robbed him then had him committed to an insane asylum. Why didn’t they just forget about him … Why bother to lock him up?” (Pg. 101) He adds, “It is also strange that, aside from his claim that he had located and seen the ark, he did not divulge any pertinent details surrounding the discovery. Does that seem to be the story of a man who had actually viewed Noah’s ark?” (Pg. 102)
He quotes Fernand Navarra, who said of the C-14 testing of his wood sample, “the wood of the ark was subjected to the test of carbon-14 which gives it the age of 4,484 years. My aim is to return to Ararat for the purpose of ascertaining further information about the ark… Biblical chronology places the Flood 1,656 years after man was created.. about 4,484 years ago.” (Pg. 135) Noorbergen observes, “Navarra’s introduction of the years 4,484 as the date of the wood has overtones of having been contrived with a preconceived date in mind… My question concerning the whereabouts and origin of this official dating report went unanswered.” (Pg. 136-137) He continues, “The suspicion that Navarra had never found the ark (or wood on the mountain) or had indeed found wood but had lost the location, finally surfaced, in 1970.” (Pg. 143)
Navarra’s wood was eventually tested scientifically, and the results were “1690 years, plus/minus 120 years … and 1,342 plus/minus 48. … There was little doubt now. The 1969 SEARCH team under the guidance of Fernand Navarra had reached Navarra’s site, had found ‘Navarra wood,’ had believed it might be a part of the ark of Noah; but the carbon-14 dating presented an almost insurmountable obstacle.” (Pg. 144)
He adds, “There remained only one issue, and as yet this has never been resolved. Why did Navarra give different locations of his 1951 discovery to different people? His directions wandered… even to people with whom he agreed to cooperate. Eryl Cummings, an ark researcher… is in agreement … that there are serious discrepancies in the Navarra accounts.” (Pg. 162)
He interviewed George Hagopian, who claimed that as a boy, he and his uncle found the ark: “When I pulled a piece off… this green moss… made the ark feel soft and muddy. My uncle took his gun and shot into the side of the ark but the bullet wouldn’t penetrate. The whole ark was petrified, turned to rock.” (Pg 167)
‘Daryl Davis’ (a pseudonym invented by Noorbergen) claimed that the ark had been found while he was working at the Smithsonian Institution. “He [Davis] named Dr. Geist as the man who identified the photographs as being of the ark… ‘He said it had been driven ashore on top of the mountain, and the bow had been destroyed when it rammed into the cliff face and later the ground settled around it and broke the back of it.’ A harried week of checking followed, but even though available evidence definitely placed Davis in Smithsonian employ in 1968, his discovery account remained no more than a story, proof of this tremendous scientific find could nowhere be found.” (Pg. 181)
He called Daryl and asked if he was available to take a lie detector test: “Reluctantly, Daryl agreed to the request, scheduling the test for the following … morning… [but] our storyteller [Davis] left his house, not to return under after our departure late that night. Was he afraid to take the test?... it was obvious that he felt his credibility would not be affected by avoiding us.” (Pg. 201)
This book will be of keen interest to those studying the ‘quest’ for the Ark.
Author Rene Noorbergen wrote in the Introduction to this 1974 book, “It remained for Dr. A.J. Smith, dean of the People’s Bible School … to initiate the modern search for the most controversial artifact historians have ever recorded---Noah’s ark. Smith’s Sacred History Reseaerch Expedition’s probe on Mount Ararat in 1949 started a chain reaction of investigations all aimed at locating the remains of the ark… Dr. Smith became convinced that even though his expedition failed in its mission, the ark had to be there… Smith’s devoted persistence has become the cause for the feverish Ararat activity which has continued since his 1949 expedition… The later editor of a leading journal … reportedly commented, ‘If the ark of Noah is ever discovered, it will be the greatest archaeological find in human history, and the greatest event since the resurrection of Christ. It will alter all the currents of scientific thought.'" (Pg. 8-9)
He tells the story of a number of previous ‘searches.’ He says of the testimony of Col. Alexander Koor, “As nice as it would be to have complete confidence in this account, there are several disturbing factors… Why, for example, did Colonel Koor wait until 1945 before submitting his knowledge about the whereabouts of the ark to public scrutiny?... Arriving in the United States in the early 20s as a Russian escapee, he was undoubtedly in need of both friends and money; yet he practically sat on the greatest story of all time, completely ignoring its value in a Christian land… It seems possible that he could have ‘borrowed’ the ‘New Eden’ account and enlarged on it with details that could only be added by someone familiar with the territory … having served in the Ararat region during the first world war…he was a man who already possessed the basic ingredients for a great story…. As much as Colonel Koor’s ‘Rosseya’ article rests on hearsay and possible fantasy, so my judgment rests on a suspicion of plagiarism and faith in the unfailing sequence found in the law of cause and result---‘New Eden’ being the cause, ‘Rosseya’ the result.” (Pg. 96)
Of the 19th century account by Prince Nouri (archdeacon of Babylon and apostolic leader of Nestorian Christians), he provides background: “While in San Francisco he fell into the hands of thieves who robbed him… To cover up their crime, they cast him into the [Napa California Insane Asylum]…’ (Pg. 99) He lists the honorific titles used by Nouri (e.g., ‘His Pontifical Eminence ’ ‘Grand Apostolic Ambassador,’ etc.), and comments, “The use of these titles suggests that Christian humility was not the outstanding trait of the Prince… Even if his claim to have located Noah’s ark was true, this display of conceit and pride from the 28-year-old… assuredly alienated the assembled clergymen in Chicago.” (Pg. 100) A female missionary told Noorbergen, “The greatest part of him is his supernatural conceit. He claims to have been put wrongfully in an insane asylum in California, but it is very easy to believe that he may have been insane.’” (Pg. 100)
He concludes, “It is difficult to believe that the thieves who robbed him then had him committed to an insane asylum. Why didn’t they just forget about him … Why bother to lock him up?” (Pg. 101) He adds, “It is also strange that, aside from his claim that he had located and seen the ark, he did not divulge any pertinent details surrounding the discovery. Does that seem to be the story of a man who had actually viewed Noah’s ark?” (Pg. 102)
He quotes Fernand Navarra, who said of the C-14 testing of his wood sample, “the wood of the ark was subjected to the test of carbon-14 which gives it the age of 4,484 years. My aim is to return to Ararat for the purpose of ascertaining further information about the ark… Biblical chronology places the Flood 1,656 years after man was created.. about 4,484 years ago.” (Pg. 135) Noorbergen observes, “Navarra’s introduction of the years 4,484 as the date of the wood has overtones of having been contrived with a preconceived date in mind… My question concerning the whereabouts and origin of this official dating report went unanswered.” (Pg. 136-137) He continues, “The suspicion that Navarra had never found the ark (or wood on the mountain) or had indeed found wood but had lost the location, finally surfaced, in 1970.” (Pg. 143)
Navarra’s wood was eventually tested scientifically, and the results were “1690 years, plus/minus 120 years … and 1,342 plus/minus 48. … There was little doubt now. The 1969 SEARCH team under the guidance of Fernand Navarra had reached Navarra’s site, had found ‘Navarra wood,’ had believed it might be a part of the ark of Noah; but the carbon-14 dating presented an almost insurmountable obstacle.” (Pg. 144)
He adds, “There remained only one issue, and as yet this has never been resolved. Why did Navarra give different locations of his 1951 discovery to different people? His directions wandered… even to people with whom he agreed to cooperate. Eryl Cummings, an ark researcher… is in agreement … that there are serious discrepancies in the Navarra accounts.” (Pg. 162)
He interviewed George Hagopian, who claimed that as a boy, he and his uncle found the ark: “When I pulled a piece off… this green moss… made the ark feel soft and muddy. My uncle took his gun and shot into the side of the ark but the bullet wouldn’t penetrate. The whole ark was petrified, turned to rock.” (Pg 167)
‘Daryl Davis’ (a pseudonym invented by Noorbergen) claimed that the ark had been found while he was working at the Smithsonian Institution. “He [Davis] named Dr. Geist as the man who identified the photographs as being of the ark… ‘He said it had been driven ashore on top of the mountain, and the bow had been destroyed when it rammed into the cliff face and later the ground settled around it and broke the back of it.’ A harried week of checking followed, but even though available evidence definitely placed Davis in Smithsonian employ in 1968, his discovery account remained no more than a story, proof of this tremendous scientific find could nowhere be found.” (Pg. 181)
He called Daryl and asked if he was available to take a lie detector test: “Reluctantly, Daryl agreed to the request, scheduling the test for the following … morning… [but] our storyteller [Davis] left his house, not to return under after our departure late that night. Was he afraid to take the test?... it was obvious that he felt his credibility would not be affected by avoiding us.” (Pg. 201)
This book will be of keen interest to those studying the ‘quest’ for the Ark.
April 19, 2020
Whether you went to Sunday School as a child or not, probably everyone has at least heard of Noah's Ark (no, not the one in Williamstown, Kentucky). You remember, that big boat (shaped more like a barge) that carried Noah, his family, and pairs of all the animals to safety during a world-wide flood. Well, out of all the missing Biblical artifacts (the Holy Grail, Pharaoh's chariots, the real Cross of Christ, the Ark of the Covenant, etc.), at 450 feet long, 75 feet wide, and 30 feet high, the Ark is probably the biggest. So whatever happened to so large a vessel after it landed "upon the mountains of Ararat" (Genesis chapter 8, verse 4)? Some people believe it is preserved under snow and ice, high up on a 17,000 mountain in Turkey waiting to be discovered! Over the centuries, many individuals have claimed to have seen it and numerous expeditions have gone in search of proof that it's there. This book's author, Rene Noorbergen (1928-1995) participated in one such investigative excursion and knew many individuals who had taken part in or led others. If you are new to the subject of "ark-eology", this book is a good place to begin YOUR expedition! (post-script: And was there really a joint Smithsonian/National Geographic Society operation around Mount Ararat in the late 1960's? If so, what were/are they hiding??)
January 5, 2025
This book was a good look at the Noah's Ark evidence of the time. Some of the stories have since been debunked while others still stand the test of time. Noorbergen was as complete as he could be. I grew up being fascinated with Noah's Ark and wanted to be on a team to find it. I was looking through my copy of it and found that it had been autographed!
November 23, 2016
This book did for me what Raiders of the Lost Ark (not related by name, but exploration) did for me visually. I'm still fascinated by the search for Noah's Ark. And I was fortunate & honored to have known Rene Noorbergen. Good stuff. Need to re-read soon.
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews