file://rtd.com/pub/zines/skeptic/02.3.lippard-ark-hoax http://www.rtd.com/~lippard/02.3.li
file://rtd.com/pub/zines/skeptic/02.3.lippard-ark-hoax
http://www.rtd.com/~lippard/02.3.lippard-ark-hoax.html
From _Skeptic_ vol. 2, no. 3, 1994, pp. 22-33
The following article is copyright (c) 1994 by the Skeptics Society,
2761 N. Marengo Ave., Altadena, CA 91001, (818) 794-3119. Permission
has been granted for noncommercial electronic circulation of this
articles in its entirety, including this notice. For information about
a special Internet introductory subscription rate, see the file
subscription-rates or contact Jim Lippard (lippard@rtd.com).
SUN GOES DOWN IN FLAMES: THE JAMMAL ARK HOAX
By Jim Lippard
"Will you speak falsely for God, and speak deceitfully for him?
Will you show partiality toward him, will you plead the case for God?"
--Job 13:7-8 (NRSV)
On February 20, 1993, CBS aired "The Incredible Discovery of Noah's
Ark," Sun International Pictures' rehash of its 1976 film "In Search of
Noah's Ark." (The earlier film was released theatrically, then shown on
NBC on May 2 and December 24, 1977 {Bailey 1978, p. 124}. Bill Crouse
{1993} estimates that as much as 20% of the 1993 program was
cannibalized from the earlier version. For criticisms of the first
program, see Bailey {1978}; Montagno {1977}; and Teeple {1978}). At the
end of June, Skeptics Society advisor Gerald Larue publicly revealed
(via Associated Press and _Time_ magazine) that George Jammal, one of
the alleged eyewitnesses of Noah's Ark on Mt. Ararat, was a hoaxer, and
that Larue himself had played a role in the hoax. The purpose was to
demonstrate the shoddy research of Sun International Pictures. (The hoax
had actually been revealed in March in a press release from the
Committee for the Scientific Examination of Religion but hardly anyone
took notice of it.))
CBS, Sun, and the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) set out to
control the damage to their credibility by defending the program against
the criticisms of Larue (in _Skeptic Vol. 2, No. 2_). Since Jammal was
continuing to defend his story, at first the three organizations went on
the offensive against Larue. CBS Entertainment President Jeff Sagansky
stated, "There was clearly a hoax perpetrated . . . we're not sure
whether it was on Sun International and CBS or whether it was on _Time_
magazine." A press release from Sun called it "sad and unfortunate that
Dr. LaRue [sic], a distinguished USC professor, would victimize Mr.
Jammal and his family to execute a third party hoax in which he was the
primary benefactor." John Morris, the Administrative Vice President of
the ICR, made much of Larue's "long association with humanistic and
anti-Christian organizations" and concluded that "This is hardly the
resume of an objective critic." All defended the overall quality of
Sun's research. (Pierce, 1993; Sun International Pictures, 1993a, p. 6;
Morris, 1993b, p. 3.)
But subsequent events began to undermine a defense based on Jammal's
veracity. On August 26, 1993, the _Long Beach Press-Telegram_, Jammal's
hometown newspaper, ran a story about the hoax. In the story, Jammal did
not admit to a hoax, but stated in response to a question about his
religious background that "If I told you that, you'd know the secret."
The reporter noted in the article that a poem framed in glass on
Jammal's piano begins, "Humanism is a philosophy for people who think
for themselves . . ." (Wiscombe, 1993). The September 1993 issue of
_Freethought Today_, the monthly publication of the Freedom From
Religion Foundation (FFRF), announced that Jammal had been a member of
the Foundation since 1986, and was scheduled to be a speaker at the
group's annual convention at the end of October, where he would reveal
his hoax. Sun's position evolved, and their press release was revised to
say that "Sun researchers now believe [Jammal] may eventually confess to
committing a hoax." It continued to defend the quality of their
research, however, stating that Jammal's confession "would mean that he
has through an elaborate lie successfully hoaxed well-meaning
individuals, religious groups, psychiatrists, Ararat explorers, and
others since 1986. Even our exhaustive research would have failed to
uncover this hoaxer if that in fact is what he is by his own future
admission" (1993b, p. 3). At the December, 1993, meeting of Atheists
United, Jammal was presented their "Atheist of the Year" award. Upon
acceptance he elaborated further on the hoax and the gullibility of the
producers.
Now that Jammal has revealed his hoax it is clear that Sun did
present false information in their program. But is their defense sound?
How extensive was their research? Did Jammal engage in an elaborate hoax
that resisted even the most cautious investigation? Or did Sun simply
present claims which supported a particular viewpoint--that Noah's Ark
has been found on Mt. Ararat--without regard for truth or accuracy?
Jammal's Hoax: 1985-1986
Several events inspired George Jammal to play the practical joke which
became a major hoax. A May 30, 1985 creation/evolution debate between
Fred Edwords (now executive director of the American Humanist
Association) and Duane Gish (vice president of the ICR) which aired on
KABC radio apparently got Jammal to thinking. While observing railroad
ties near his workplace, he got the idea of telling Gish that he had
found Noah's Ark and using that wood as his evidence.
On November 1, 1985, he wrote to Gish: "Since I was a little boy I
was fascinated with the story of Noah and the Ark. I made up my mind
that when I grow up, I will do my share as a good Christian to prove the
bible is the true word of God." Jammal told a story about saving money
and flying to Greece in 1972, where he bought a Volkswagen. From Greece,
he drove to Turkey, to the village "Nakhitchevan." There he was assisted
by a man and his family, but he was unable to find the Ark. A similar
trip in 1980 was also unsuccessful, but in 1984 he and a companion
crawled into a cave of ice which proved to be the Ark. Each chipped off
a piece of wood to prove that they had found the Ark. But then disaster
struck: Jammal's companion fell into a crevasse while attempting to
take a photograph and was killed. Jammal said that he had kept his
discovery secret until writing the letter to Gish.
In the letter (reprinted in _Freethought Today_, 1993b), he tells
who assisted him, and reveals that the names which are part of the hoax
are intended to be sounded out carefully. The man whose family aided him
was "Mr. Asholian." His companion who died was a "Polish friend" of Mr.
Asholian's son-in-law, named "Vladimir Sobitchsky." The son-in-law,
whose full name is conspicuously absent from Jammal's later accounts, is
given in the Gish letter as "Allis Buls Hitian." (Jammal remains shocked
that no one caught him on this last one.)
In 1986, John Morris contacted Jammal about his story and arranged to
interview him at length. In an early letter from Jammal to Morris, dated
January 21, 1986, Jammal gives another hint of a hoax when he writes to
give Morris his phone number and adds: "But the people here are not
religious at all. And I think they don't believe in my story about
Noah's Ark. Please don't discuss it with them."
Jammal visited libraries and read books about Noah's Ark claims, and
about Mt. Ararat and the surrounding region, which he had never visited.
At some point, as part of his preparation, he watched a videotape of the
1976 Sun Classic Pictures production, "In Search of Noah's Ark."
On June 10, 1986, Morris interviewed Jammal and produced a transcript
from the tape recording. A careful examination of this transcript
reveals not only that Jammal's account contains numerous
inconsistencies, but that much of the information flow in the
conversation is from Morris to Jammal rather than vice-versa, the
classic technique of "cold reading" used by "psychics" to glean
information from their clients. For example, the following is their
discussion about the size of Lake Kop, west of Ararat (notations in
brackets are Morris'):
JM: How big was Lake Kop in diameter when you saw it?
GJ: It wasn't that big like Lake Superior. It's a small lake.
JM: Is it 100 feet across? 500 feet across? It changes every year. I was
just wondering how it was in 1984.
GJ: That's it, it changes. It depends on what time of the year you are
there. [pause] I think it was 100 ft or a little bit more than 100.
I don't really know.
A few other exchanges while viewing slides of the area also show
Morris giving information to Jammal:
JM: This is up by Lake Kop. You saw something like this? [rocky slopes]
GJ: Oh yeah.
JM: There is a prominent ice cliff here. Do you remember that? [west
side]
GJ: Yes, I remember the big cliff, okay. [not convinced]
JM: This is that same glacier with the crevasses. Coming down to Lake
Kop, down here. There is a very big rock [A-K rock], hundreds of feet
tall. You don't remember that? There are many similar rocks, but this
big rock next to the big glacier? We are standing near Lake Kop to
take the picture.
GJ: Lake Kop is to the left of here?
JM: No, behind us.
GJ: Yes, behind us. To the left, down there.
GJ: Do you have a picture from the lake up to the summit?
JM: Well, you can't see it from Lake Kop; you have to climb the ridge
and then look up, but I have some from up there.
The transcript also points out some inconsistencies in Jammal's account:
JM: Where did you start from? . . .
GJ: They told me there is a city there--it's called Nakichevan, or
something, I don't remember exactly the name. It is "where the ark
was landed"--that's the meaning.
JM: That's in Russia [pointing to a map].
GJ: Well, that's what they told me; I don't know where that city is.
JM: The one you mentioned in your letter was Nakichevan.
GJ: Yes, that's what they told me. This is Russia? [astonished at the
location of Nakichevan]
JM: Yes. This is Russia; here's the Russia-Turkey border; here's Mt.
Ararat. So you drove to Turkey in your VW. Did you cross over into
Russia?
GJ: No, I didn't go to Russia. But that's what they told me, if my
memory is not failing me.
Morris finally gets suspicious at one point:
JM: A man in Igdir, you think? Do you remember his name?
GJ: Asholian.
JM: But that's an Armenian name. I would be surprised if someone in
Turkey had that name.
GJ: Part of Armenia is taken by the Turks, and part of Armenia is taken
by the Russians. Maybe he has a different name, but that's what he
told me . . . .
JM: Please forgive me, I'm not playing the district attorney, but for
clarity, a minute ago you said you thought you came from the south,
but then in looking at the map you thought you came from the north.
GJ: Okay, this is north. We came there, this is what I mean we went
between the two mountains and then we started to go from the south to
the north.
JM: You cannot drive across.
GJ: No, we didn't drive, we walked.
And what about Jammal's piece of wood from the Ark? What had he done
with this incredibly valuable archaeological find?
GJ: Now you saw my place; I have to look for the piece of wood. You saw
my house--you didn't see the garage. You know it is all boxes.
(Morris told me in writing and verbally that he had called Jammal
several times asking about the wood, but Jammal said he had not really
bothered to look for it.)
Jammal's initial hoax was not very convincing, and nothing came of
it. John Morris published nothing about it, and other Ark researchers to
whom he sent tapes of the Jammal interview, such as Bill Crouse, thought
that Jammal's story was obviously untrue. The evidence was overwhelming:
Jammal contradicted himself, but resorted to saying "that's what they
told me" when inconsistencies were pointed out to him. He let Morris do
most of the talking, and usually just agreed with what Morris had to
say. He suggested that his own family didn't believe his story and asked
Morris not to talk to them. His first letter to the ICR contained
obviously bogus names, one of which was a very strong hint that his
story was fabricated. And his alleged most valuable possession, a piece
of Noah's Ark, was stuffed away in a box somewhere that he hadn't
bothered to remember.
Morris, however, did not--and still does not--seem to recognize the
significance of this evidence. On the one hand, he has stated (phone
interview) that "When I first interviewed [Jammal] . . . , I remember
thinking he had nothing of interest to tell us as far as searching for
the Ark. He didn't know where he was sufficiently to be of any help and
his story was so different [from other claimed Ark eyewitnesses]." On
the other hand, he wrote that (Sellier, 1993, p. 3):
It is my impression that [Jammal] was on Mt. Ararat. He seems to know
Lake Kop and described in reasonable detail the terrain nearby. He
especially was familiar with the loose rocks. His memory of the size of
Lake Kop is accurate. His feel for the elevation at the base of the main
ice cap is about right.
Morris had continued to maintain uncertainty about whether or not
Jammal's original story was true until his interview on _Inside Edition_
(December 15, 1993) in which he admitted he had been hoaxed.
Bill Crouse of Christian Information Ministries, International, an
Ark hunter who publishes the newsletter _Ararat Report_, was not so
hesitant. Crouse disbelieved Jammal's story from the time he first heard
it in 1986, and was both surprised and disappointed to see Jammal on
"The Incredible Discovery of Noah's Ark," a program which he thoroughly
debunked in the May 1993 issue of his newsletter. Crouse (1993, p. 5)
wrote on the basis of Morris' interview that Jammal
is extremely confused when confronted about the geography of the
mountain. He first claims to have started his ascent from
Nakhichevan (60 miles away!) . . . . whenever he was confronted
with contradictions he would defer to: 'I was told this' . . . he
says he found a man in Igdir named Asholian. An Armenian? Living
in Igdir in 1980? Highly unlikely . . . . We were at Ararat in
1984, and no climbers were allowed to climb on any route but the
southern route. He claims, however, to have seen a group of
climbers at Kop. He claims he rented mules at Igdir. How could he
do this without getting caught? Does he have any proof that he was
ever in eastern Turkey, such as photos, or his passport? Is he
willing to have his wood tested for age?
Crouse's article shows that a critically thinking person--even one
who believes in the Ark and the Flood of Noah--had plenty of reasons to
question Jammal's story prior to public allegations of a hoax.
Jammal's Hoax: 1992-1993
When Sun International Pictures came to John Morris asking for
information about persons claiming to have seen the Ark, Morris gave
them Jammal's name, along with copies of the material he had already
collected. By this time, Jammal and Gerald Larue had become acquainted,
and Larue had appeared on Sun's previous CBS program, "Ancient Secrets
of the Bible." Larue, who was unhappy with the way his interview had
been edited, encouraged Jammal and offered him suggestions for carrying
out his interview with Sun. Jammal prepared a piece of wood by
soaking it in a variety of sauces including wine, teriyaki sauce,
spices, alcohol, and seeds, then microwaving and baking it. Jammal's
interview with Sun went smoothly, and he was able to keep his story
fairly consistent with his original interview in part because Morris had
provided him with a transcript. Sun expressed no doubts about Jammal's
claims, and his segment was prominently featured on "The Incredible
Discovery of Noah's Ark."
Though the initial press release from Larue was largely ignored, the
publication of the story in _Time_ magazine in June, 1993, started the
avalanche. In late April Jammal contacted the ACLU to inquire about
legal representation out of fear that he might be sued. They declined to
participate, but contacted _Skeptic_ publisher Dr. Michael Shermer to
inquire if the Skeptics Society would be interested in getting involved.
Shermer called Jammal, who expressed extreme anxiety about being sued
for his hoax, noting "I'm afraid they will sue me and take my home. I
have a wife and children and I am afraid for them." Shermer told Jammal
he would put him in touch with James Randi, who has had his share of
legal entanglements. At the time Shermer informed Randi of the hoax, the
latter was involved in a lawsuit that had come to trial. One of his
character witnesses was _Time_ magazine science editor Leon Jaroff, who,
smelling a good story, immediately called Shermer. Though Jammal was
still reticent about going public, Jaroff pieced the story together
through Shermer, Larue, and several other sources, and the story broke
with considerable attention.
When Larue blew the whistle on the hoax, he criticized Sun for making
no effort to verify Jammal's story. Not only did Sun overlook the
overwhelming evidence of a hoax already in their possession, they
continued to ignore it when it was called to their attention. Sun's
press releases state that they examined Jammal's interview with Morris
as part of their investigation (Sun International Pictures 1993b, p. 1;
Sellier 1993, pp. 2-3). Sun's researcher David Balsiger stated in a
telephone interview on December 7, 1993, that the earliest account from
Jammal that he had seen was the 1986 Morris interview, though he also
said that he had looked through Morris' files. In light of how readily
Morris has sent out copies of the 1985 Jammal-to-Gish letter to
skeptics, I find it hard to believe that he concealed the existence of
this letter from Sun. Ark researcher David Fasold, in a telephone
interview on November 27, 1993, said that Sun's researcher David
Balsiger came to his home on August 8, 1992 to discuss his (Fasold's)
appearance on the show. Fasold says that he told Balsiger on the basis
of the Morris interview transcript that Jammal's account was clearly
untrue. He was quite surprised when Balsiger told him that Jammal was to
be the show's star eyewitness. Fasold did not appear on the program.
David Balsiger says that he does not remember any conversation with
Fasold about Jammal. Ark researcher Bill Crouse said in a telephone
interview on December 7, 1993, that he specifically warned Balsiger that
Jammal (and other claimed Ark eyewitnesses) lacked credibility, and gave
Balsiger reasons for his opinion.
Sun and the ICR have subsequently made no mention of any of this
early evidence of a hoax, but instead referred to the early years of
Jammal's hoax as evidence against Larue's claims. This offensive
maneuver against Larue was possible because the initial stories
reporting Jammal's hoax incorrectly described Larue as the initiator of
the hoax. CBS, Sun, and the ICR all latched on to this incorrect claim
as a means of self-defense. CBS's Sagansky stated that "The crux of that
[_Time_] article was that Dr. Larue from USC apparently put Mr. Jammal
up to this hoax. And in fact, we have the exact same testimony from
Jammal dating back to 1986." Sun Executive Producer Charles Sellier, Jr.
wrote that "It is difficult for us to understand how Dr. LaRue [sic]
master-minded a hoax in 1992 based on facts first recorded in 1986."
John Morris reported that he sent his early Jammal materials to _Time_
magazine with the expectation that its reporters would take it as
evidence against Larue's hoax charges. He concluded:
Don't hold your breath for a _Time_ magazine or Associated Press
retraction. If it happens, it will be buried on an obscure page.
Don't look for LaRue's [sic] fellow humanists to insist on a
higher standard of integrity. The damage has already been done;
the goal has already been accomplished. Christianity and creation
have been given another 'black eye' in public, with no recourse.
Morris suggests that a retraction is in order for this relatively
minor mistake--reporting that Larue initiated the hoax, rather than
simply helped with its last stages--while ignoring his own failings
which contributed to the success of the hoax in the first place.
(Pierce,1993; Sellier,1993, p. 3; Morris, 1993b, p. 4. Morris' 1993b
article, prior to the quoted conclusion, claimed that "most" statements
in the Sun program were "essentially accurate;" that "Especially
powerful were interviews with several who claim to have seen the Ark,"
including Jammal; that while _Time_ and the Associated Press "have
branded Jammal as a fraud," a "quick phone call to Jammal proved that he
had not retracted his testimony and had offered to take a lie detector
test;" that Jammal "had not benefited financially from his story, except
for a modest interview fee paid by Sun Pictures;" that Larue is not "an
objective critic;" that "Psychiatric evaluation of Jammal's taped
interview pronounced him to be credible;" and that Jammal's "knowledge
of the mountain and its people could hardly have been coached by someone
who had never been there." When I read Morris his strongly worded
conclusion {without the above summary} and asked him if he felt that a
retraction was in order for his defense of Jammal's story, he answered
that he did not remember his article well enough to know if he needed a
retraction. He stated that "I don't remember it well enough to know that
I stood behind Jammal that he saw the Ark; I don't know that I've ever
thought that, so I doubt that I said it." When pressed, he did say that
"I have no stomach for saying things that are wrong, and if I've done
that, then yeah, I'll retract.")
A new article informing ICR followers of the hoax, if not a
retraction of Morris' previous article, appears to be in order. A recent
article by Morris, 1993c, agreeing that there is no good evidence of
"flash frozen" mammoths is perhaps a promising sign, but his overall
record for correction of mistakes and falsehoods is less than perfect.
For example, when the alleged human footprints at the Paluxy River were
shown to be dinosaur tracks, Morris' 1980 book on the subject, _Tracking
Those Incredible Dinosaurs and the People Who Knew Them_ was officially
pulled from circulation in January 1986, but he has continued to suggest
that there is evidence of human footprints at the site {Morris 1986b,
1986c, 1988; Cole 1986; Schadewald 1986, p. 12}. Also see Cole and
Godfrey {1985}, Hastings {1989}, and Kuban {1986, 1989a}. Morris
appealed to the withdrawal of his 1980 book as evidence of his
commitment to truth during my interview with him, but he has failed to
retract other erroneous statements even after learning of his errors,
e.g., the claim that Donald Johanson has been keeping quiet the location
where "Lucy's" knee joint was found {Morris 1989; Lippard 1990, pp. 27-
28} and that there are fossil-bearing strata on Mt. Ararat {Zindler
1989}. Further, while Morris' Paluxy "mantrack" book was officially
withdrawn, the book continued to be sold. Former Creation/Evolution
editor Fred Edwords was one person who successfully ordered a copy
(personal communication from John Cole, November 30, 1993). The book and
the "mantrack" claims continue to be touted in Henry Morris' 1993
_History of Modern Creationism_ {2nd edition}, pp. 291-292.)
The primary line of defense--denial that there was a hoax by Jammal--
was accompanied by a secondary line of defense: that Sun's research was
exemplary. When it became clear to everyone--except Morris--that Jammal
was a hoaxer, this became the primary defense. As Sun's Allan Pederson
told the _Los Angeles Times_ after Jammal confessed, "We certainly will
be as conscientious as we can and scrutinize sources as closely as we
can in the future. But frankly, we took the same due diligence before
all this. My stance is that it's just about impossible to defend against
that kind of well-planned and well-thought-out deception," (Even though,
as Larue told a reporter for _Inside Edition_, carbon-14 dating was not
necessary. One only had to smell the wood to know it was a fake. The
reporter sniffed the wood and exclaimed "teriyaki"!) The attacks on
Larue were completely dropped from a later revised version of Sun's
press release, except for a single paragraph which reiterated the point
about Jammal's story being told to the ICR prior to Larue's involvement.
The secondary defense consisted of four parts: (1) that Sun had
examined Morris' interview with Jammal; (2) that Sun had conducted their
own two-hour audio taped interview looking for inconsistencies in
Jammal's story; (3) that Sun compared the two interviews and found them
to be consistent with each other; (4) that Sun gave Jammal's interview
tapes to psychiatrist Paul Meier, who pronounced Jammal credible. By
late September, Sun added a fifth defense: (5) That Sun had Jammal's
hand-drawn map of Ararat and his expedition routes examined by Ararat
expeditioneers who "assured us that it could not have been drawn by
anyone who did not have experience with the mountain" (Cerone, 1993; Sun
International Pictures, 1993a; Sellier, 1993).
The first point of this defense is clearly no defense at all, since
Jammal's initial interview should have made it clear that his story was
not credible. The second point is difficult to judge without knowing
what questions were asked, but it is clear that Sun did not bother to
check Jammal's passport, test his wood, or find anyone who could confirm
any part of his story. The third defense is negated by the fact that
Jammal possessed a copy of his original interview and had ample time to
prepare. The fifth defense is undercut by the fact that Jammal had read
books by Ark researchers in preparation for his interview, several of
which contain maps of the area. It is also counteracted by Jammal's lack
of detailed knowledge of the geography of the region in his interview
with Morris.
The fourth defense is the one which Sun has placed the most weight on
and devoted the most space to in its press releases. Quotations from
Meier--who has never met or spoken with Jammal--fill two and a half of
the six pages of Sun's initial defense against the hoax allegations.
Meier's qualifications are given by Sun as follows: "a well-known
California psychiatrist, co-founder of the 28 Minirth-Meier clinics
across America, and author of 40 books on human behavior." It is also
mentioned that Meier "served as the field physician on Astronaut James
Irwin's Noah's Ark expedition to Mt. Ararat."
Meier, who now practices in Richardson, Texas, combines Christianity
and psychiatry in his clinics, which provide "a ministry for Christ as
well as . . . help hurting people" (Wiscombe, 1993; Cohen, 1993). It is
not at all clear that Meier is qualified to offer a judgment about
Jammal's veracity on the basis of an audio tape but even so, some of his
own statements seem to cast doubt on Jammal's story. He states that
Jammal seems to be "an 'obsessive-compulsive with histrionic features' .
. . a perfectionist performer . . . . He wants fame and yet he's humble
enough to admit it . . . . He wanted to feel special." But Meier's
statements also bring his own credibility into doubt. He states that he
finds Jammal to be "the most credible" of the four alleged eyewitnesses
on the program, in marked contrast to Bill Crouse, who found Jammal to
be the least credible. Meier claimed that Jammal's "descriptions of the
customs of the people, of the Ark itself and its location, are very
accurate" and that they match "exactly what I know to be true about the
Ark from the secret government reconnaissance photos." On the former
point, Meier is at odds not only with Crouse, but with John Morris, who
found Jammal's account unhelpful with regard to pinpointing the location
of the Ark. On the latter, Meier owes an explanation of what "secret
government reconnaissance photos" he is talking about and how he came to
have access to them. (Sun International Pictures, 1993a, pp. 3-5;
Sellier, 1993, pp. 3-4; Sun International Pictures,1993b, p. 2. In
Chapter 13 of Balsiger and Sellier {1976} John Morris is quoted saying
that he had interviewed the pilot of a spy plane who claimed to have
viewed secret photos of the Ark, but that his attempts to get copies
have failed. Bill Crouse, in a telephone interview on December 7, 1993,
said that he suggested that Sun have Meier examine the interview tapes
but was quite surprised that Meier endorsed Jammal's veracity. He also
provided some information about the spy photos, saying that an
acquaintance of Meier claims to have seen photos of Mt. Ararat taken
from a U-2 plane which bear some resemblance to a large ship. Crouse
suggested that the story about the photos may well be true, but the
object pictured was probably a "phantom Ark" basalt formation, of which
there are many on Ararat.)
Jammal's most concrete piece of evidence for his claimed visit to the
Ark was his piece of wood, and Sun's program made much of it. Near the
end of the broadcast, the narrator's voice says, over a scene from a
dramatization of Jammal's fictional Ark visit and then a photograph of
Fernand Navarra's wood: "Samples of the wood taken from the vessel have
been dated to the time when the Bible indicates a worldwide flood
occurred." This strongly suggests that Jammal's wood was tested, but it
was not. Gerald Larue, in _Time_, specifically criticized Sun for
failing to perform any tests on the wood. Sun's excuses for failing to
do so have evolved. In the original Associated Press story on the hoax,
Sun's chief researcher David Balsiger stated that "We couldn't test the
wood in time for our deadline." In the September _Long Beach Press-
Telegram_ article, Balsiger stated that "This is an entertainment show.
We're not supposed to make our own news or tests," a position also taken
by Sun's press releases. In a letter from Sun's Charles Sellier to CBS
Vice President Steve Warner, Sellier wrote that "Even if we had the
money and time to test every piece of evidence presented by experts, it
would not have been definitive as there would still be those who would
disagree and take exception to the findings." The first Sun press
release expanded on this, claiming that "the sample according to the
_Time_ article was contaminated by baking and juices. This would have
prevented obtaining accurate carbon-14 dating results." (Associated
Press,1993; Wiscombe, 1993; Sun International Pictures, 1993a, p. 5;
Sellier, 1993, p. 5; Sun International Pictures, 1993b, p. 3). In a
telephone interview on December 7, 1993, Sun's David Balsiger stated
that he got in some trouble with CBS for "making news" by testing a soil
sample as part of his research for one of Sun's "Ancient Secrets of the
Bible" programs, and that had that not happened he probably would have
tested the wood.
Sellier's claim that a carbon-14 test would "not have been
definitive" seems to be completely without foundation. Cerone (1993)
also claims, apparently on the basis of information from Jammal, that
Robert Dietz, professor emeritus of geology at Arizona State University,
asked Sun for a piece of the wood for testing, and that Jammal was told
by Sun not to give a sample to Dietz. Dietz says that he never asked Sun
for a sample of the wood (personal communication, November 29, 1993).
Sun International Pictures claims that they made every reasonable
effort to validate Jammal's story, and that they cannot be held
responsible for being taken in by his hoax. While this defense is highly
implausible in light of the evidence that was available to Sun prior to
the broadcast of their program, it becomes even more implausible when it
is noted that Jammal's story was not the only one on the program lacking
in credibility.
Other Hoaxes?
"The Incredible Discovery of Noah's Ark" featured the stories of several
other people who have claimed to have found the Ark on Ararat. One of
these was Ed Davis of Albuquerque, New Mexico, who was stationed in
Hamadan, Iran in 1943. Davis claims that while there, he saw a snow-
capped mountain in the distance and was taken there by Lourd natives of
the region, including one named Abbas, who showed him the Ark. The Sun
program made much of the fact that Davis took and passed a polygraph
test. But the show failed to mention certain relevant facts. These
include: (1) Davis' polygraph test consisted of a total of six
questions, one of which showed unusual stress. That question was "Are
you lying when you state that no one ever told you about the Ark other
than Abbas and the Bible?" (2) Davis claims he saw Ararat from Hamadan,
which is 400 miles away. (3) Davis claims his trip to Ararat took about
half a day. (4) Davis' story has changed significantly over time--e.g.,
he now says Kurds, not Lourds, took him to Ararat. (These details and
others are presented in Crouse {1993, pp. 3-4}. Crouse has also
discussed Davis in more detail in the January-February 1988 and January-
February 1989 issues of _Ararat Report_. Crouse suggests that Davis was
taken to the mountain "Kuh e Alvand," 60 miles west of Hamadan, which is
believed by many in the region to be where the Ark landed.)
Another claimed Ark eyewitness was Ed Behling, who has refused to
talk about his claims since the early 1980's. (His appearance on the Sun
program was taken from an older interview.) Behling claims to have been
shown the Ark while in Turkey with the Air Force. Behling's story
contains dubious details which, when he was questioned about them, he
refused to answer. For instance, he claims to have built a campfire just
below the Ark (above 13,000 feet), but would not answer questions about
the nature of the campfire and what he used for fuel. Those who know
Behling have described him as a sincere Christian who sometimes
embellishes stories (Crouse, 1993, p. 4).
A third claimed Ark eyewitness was Fernand Navarra, a Frenchman who
has been variously described as a "junk dealer" and an "industrialist."
Navarra traveled to Ararat on several occasions in the 1950's and
1960's, and claimed to have found wood from the Ark in 1955 and 1969.
The Sun program reported that "Navarra himself had the hand-hewn wood
that he had found tested in three different laboratories. He was told
that its age was around 5,000 years, clearly in line with the biblical
account of the flood. The scientific tests prove beyond question that
something very old, something very mysterious, was definitely on Mt.
Ararat."
What the show did not say is that one of Navarra's expedition members
and his guides have said that Navarra purchased the wood from natives in
town and carried it up the mountain himself, prior to his 1955
discovery. The show also did not reveal that the testing methods which
gave an age of 5,000 years were of dubious scientific value, and that
radiocarbon tests on Navarra's 1955 and 1969 wood by six labs yielded
ages from 1,190 to 1,690 years old. Finally, the show failed to note
that Navarra has pointed out several different locations as where he
found his wood. (Crouse, 1993, pp. 2-3; Bailey, 1978; Fox, 1993, p. 44.
Navarra's own account is given in Navarra edited with Balsiger {1974}.
Balsiger and Sellier {1976}, chapter 12, discusses the tests of
Navarra's wood and raises standard creationist objections to radiocarbon
dating, objections which have now been rejected by the ICR {Aardsma
1989}. Sun International Pictures {1993a, p. 6} states that "No one has
come forward with evidence that any of these remaining eyewitnesses
[other than Jammal] have perpetrated hoaxes on Sun International."
Crouse told me in a telephone interview on December 7, 1993 that while
he never called any of these people "hoaxers," he did present Balsiger
with considerable evidence that their stories were not credible, prior
to the completion of the show. Crouse {1993} also predates Sun's reply.)
All of the above information was in Sun's possession during the
production of the show. Ark researcher Bill Crouse provided Sun with
copies of all back issues of his _Ararat Report_, which included
critiques of these alleged Ark eyewitnesses. Crouse, who was filmed for
"The Incredible Discovery of Noah's Ark" but was not used in the
program, says that he specifically told Balsiger when the film crew was
at his office that Jammal, Davis, and Behling were not credible.
Is Sun Biased?
In Charles Sellier's letter to CBS defending the quality of "The
Incredible Discovery of Noah's Ark," he stated that "our role is to
present all of the known information and let the audience decide." Sun's
Allan Pederson told the _Los Angeles Times_ that "we don't take a point
of view, creationist or otherwise" (Sellier, 1993, p. 5; Cerone, 1993).
These claims, however, stand in stark contrast to the facts. Consider
the following.
1. Discovery bias. The program's foregone conclusion is given in its
title. It claims that Noah's Ark has been "discovered," and that
therefore the creationist claim that the Flood of Noah was a historical
event is true. Ark researcher Bill Crouse has complained of his
disappointment with the program and how he has "absolutely hated" to
tell excited Christians who viewed the program that "No, that's still
premature; the discovery of Noah's Ark has not yet been authenticated"
(Crouse, 1993, p. 1).
2. Skeptics misrepresented. The program was scripted by Sun; token
skeptics were given straw man arguments to read for the cameras. The
scripts for Sun's programs are written in advance and approved by the
network even before some of the actors are selected to read their parts.
In some cases, skeptics have been allowed to write their own scripts,
but Sun freely edits the results. Skeptic Farrell Till, who appeared on
the Sun program "Ancient Secrets of the Bible II," was allowed to write
his own script for three taped segments. Sun discarded one, edited one
down to almost nothing, and aired one as written and read by Till. The
straw man script which had originally been written for Till was read by
someone else. This practice of making skeptics into defenders of straw
men via pre-scripted positions and biased editing, in fact, was a major
factor in Larue's encouragement of Jammal to hoax Sun. Sun's David
Balsiger, in a December 7, 1993 telephone interview, stated that those
who appear on Sun's shows are given the opportunity to rewrite and
improve their scripts, and that the initial scripts reflect what they
think a given expert is likely to say on the basis of telephone
interviews and other research. (See Barker, 1993; Larue, 1993; Malone,
1993; and Till, 1993.)
3. Believers misrepresented. The "experts" on the program were
overwhelmingly believers in the Flood of Noah and the reality of the Ark
on Ararat, even though the scientific consensus is the reverse. I
counted forty on the pro-side and only three on the con-side. Of the
forty pro-Ark "experts," at least six (John Morris, Ken Cumming, Henry
Morris, Larry Vardiman, Walter Brown, and Carl Baugh) make their living
as advocates of creationism, the first four for the ICR. These
affiliations were not disclosed, but instead these six people were
identified as "Professor of Geology," "Professor of Biology," "Professor
of Hydraulics," "Professor of Atmospheric Sciences," "Professor
Emeritus--Physics," and "Paleoanthropologist," respectively. David
Balsiger has stated that the on-screen identifications were limited by
CBS to two lines: one for the person's name, and one for some
identification of their field of expertise. Other creationists on the
program included John Whitcomb, Ethel Nelson, Don Shockey, and Roger
Oakland. No doubt there were many others. None of these experts address
the numerous scientific absurdities in the Ark story. (A detailed
account of the numerous scientific, engineering, and practical problems
with the Ark story is given by Moore {1983}. Problems with Ark sighting
claims are discussed in Bailey {1978}, Moore {1981}, and Teeple {1978}.)
4. Credentials misrepresented. A related point is that credentials of
"experts" were frequently misrepresented. If we closely examine the
above examples the misrepresentations get progressively worse: John
Morris is a professor of geology for the ICR's Graduate School, but his
title on ICR stationery is "Administrative Vice President." Henry Morris
has been a professor of hydraulics at respected universities, but he now
serves as the President of the ICR. Walter Brown's Ph.D. is in
mechanical engineering, and he is presently the Director of the Center
for Scientific Creation, which he operates out of his home in Phoenix,
Arizona. Carl Baugh, advocate of the Paluxy River "mantracks" and the
proprietor of the Creation Evidences Museum in Glen Rose, Texas, has
claimed a remarkable assortment of degrees in theology and science, but
his credentials have been found to be of dubious validity. He has
claimed a Ph.D. in theology from the California Graduate School of
Theology, an unaccredited school not even listed in most college
directories, but he has subsequently admitted that despite completing
the required work he never actually obtained a degree. He has claimed
other theology degrees which have also failed to stand up under
scrutiny. All of his science degrees are from unaccredited institutions
run by himself or by a former associate, Clifford Wilson. His claimed
degree in paleoanthropology is from Pacific College, a small religious
school in Australia run by Wilson which is not accredited or authorized
to grant science degrees. (Kuban, 1989b, 1989c gives the details on
Baugh's degrees. Baugh {1989} is a reply of sorts which does not deny
any of Kuban's substantive claims. Bill Crouse, in a telephone interview
on December 7, 1993, says that he warned David Balsiger that Baugh
lacked credibility among Ark researchers.)
Perhaps the two worst misrepresentations of credentials (apart from
Baugh) were the show's on-screen identifications of "Dr. Ethel Nelson,
Chinese Pictograph Linguist" and "Dr. Don Shockey, Professor of
Anthropology." The viewer was given the impression that both are
academic researchers with Ph.D.s in the fields identified. In fact,
Ethel Nelson is a medical doctor in Dunlap, Tennessee and Don Shockey is
an optometrist. In the latter case, at least, Sun knew full well it was
misrepresenting Shockey's credentials--in the closing credits of the
program, "Don Shockey, O.D." is credited as a technical advisor. (Nelson
was the author of the ICR's Impact No. 169 titled "The Chinese Language
and the Creative Hands of God." In that publication she was identified
as an M.D. and as "a physician in Dunlap, Tennessee." Nelson claims that
"the ancient Chinese worshiped the same Creator-God as the Hebrews"
based on her study of Chinese pictographs. Fox {1993} points out that a
number of "experts" on the program are not listed in directories of
professionals for the fields in which they are supposedly expert.)
5. Untrue and misleading statements. The program made statements
which the producers knew or should have known to be untrue or
misleading, even apart from the credential misrepresentations. For
example, footage at the end of the program showed a photograph allegedly
taken from the air by former astronaut James Irwin during his last
flight over Ararat. In fact, the photo shown was taken by Bob Garbe, an
Ohio pharmacist, while standing on the mountain. The photo has been
analyzed and the formation pictured is too small to be Noah's Ark. Bill
Crouse has reported that he provided Sun with the Garbe photo and
identified its source, and that it had also been published in a book by
John Morris with the correct attribution to Garbe. This factual error
was the only one on the program which John Morris found worthy of note
for the ICR's _Acts & Facts_ readership (Crouse, 1993, p. 7; Morris,
1993a. Morris wrote of the identification of the photo as Irwin's that
"While many facts [on the program] were somewhat overstated, only one
piece of evidence was 'wrong.'" I'm afraid I must disagree with Morris's
tally).
The program devoted one lengthy segment to a reenactment of the
alleged discovery of the Ark by a Russian expedition in 1916. This story
apparently comes from an article which appeared in _New Eden_ magazine
in 1940. Floyd M. Gurley, the author, has admitted that the story was a
hoax. Ark researcher David Fasold says that when he tried to show a copy
of a letter from Gurley to Balsiger, Balsiger refused to look at it.
Balsiger says that he doesn't remember such an event. (Telephone
interview with David Fasold, November 27, 1993; with David Balsiger,
December 7, 1993. Fasold says he has a file of information about
Gurley's hoax, and read me excerpts from Gurley's letter. Some details
about the _New Eden_ hoax have been published in Bailey {1978, pp. 55-
56} and Teeple {1978, pp. 103-107}. Balsiger and Sellier {1976, pp. 102-
109} and Berlitz {1987, pp. 29-41} defend the Russian expedition story
on the basis of testimony from Alexander Koor, who did not begin telling
it until 1945. The details of Koor's story suggest that it was derived
from Gurley's, though both Berlitz {1987} and Balsiger and Sellier
{1976} reject any connection.)
One person on the show, Vence Will, identified as "World War II
USAF," said that he saw photos of the Ark around 1944 published in the
military newspaper _Stars & Stripes_. The newspaper and photos were not
shown on the program because despite extensive searches, no such photos
have ever been discovered. Sun's Balsiger and Sellier report these
negative results in their 1976 book (Balsiger and Sellier, 1976, pp.
155-157).
Other misleading omissions include the fact that "Ararat" refers in
the Bible to a region, not to a specific mountain (see 2 Kings 19:37;
Jeremiah 51:27). Some of the ancient writers appealed to by the program,
such as Berosus, specifically claimed that the Ark was in the Cordyaean
mountains, more than two hundred miles south of Mt. Ararat (Josephus,
1987. Other errors and omissions are detailed in Fox, 1993).
6. Other questionable Sun productions. Sun has produced numerous
shows filled with wild speculation and dubious factual content. Past Sun
productions have included "Ghosts from the Dead," "The Lincoln
Conspiracy" (also a book co-authored by Balsiger and Sellier), "Hangar
18," "The Bermuda Triangle," and "The Mysterious Monster" (about
Bigfoot). Planned future productions included "Mysteries of the Ancient
World" (still forthcoming on CBS in February), "Revelations," and "The
UFO Phenomenon." The latter two projects were canceled by CBS as a
result of the controversy over "The Incredible Discovery of Noah's Ark"
(Balsiger and Sellier, 1976, p. 218; Cerone, 1993; Rosenberg, 1993b;
Teeple, 1978, p. 125).
7. Balsiger's questionable background. A final point bearing on
whether Sun knew what it was doing is that its researcher, David
Balsiger, has a past history of involvement with Christian hoaxes.
During the early 1970s, Balsiger wrote both books and newsletter
articles for the Christian publisher Logos International. He ghost-
authored or co-authored a number of "autobiographical" books giving
Christian testimonies, including Fernand Navarra's _Noah's Ark: I
Touched It_, self-proclaimed former Satanist turned Christian comedian
Mike Warnke's _The Satan Seller_, and faith healer Morris Cerullo's _The
Back Side of Satan_. Warnke's story was exposed as a hoax in a lengthy
article in the Christian magazine _Cornerstone_ in 1992, though Balsiger
continues to defend it. Cerullo, for whom both Balsiger and Warnke
worked prior to the formation of Warnke's own ministry, has come under
heavy fire from Christian critics for his unorthodox theology and
incredible claims (e.g., that he was taken from an orphanage by angels
and transported to heaven for a face-to-face meeting with God). Logos
International, which is no longer in business, also published a hoaxed
biography of a former rabbi turned Christian and a book which propagated
the "urban legend" about NASA computers discovering a "missing day" and
proving the biblical account of Joshua making the sun stand still.
(Balsiger's involvement with Cerullo and with Logos International is
discussed briefly in Trott and Hertenstein's 1992 expos of Mike Warnke,
and more extensively in their book {Hertenstein and Trott 1993}. He was
the media director for Cerullo's World Evangelism from 1970-1972 and
Logos' director of marketing from 1972-1973. They also briefly comment
on "rabbi" Michael Esses' 1973 biography, _Michael, Michael, Why Do You
Hate Me?_. The fabricated story about NASA and the "missing day," which
was widely disseminated in Harold Hill's 1974 book _How to Live Like a
King's Kid_, is discussed by McIver {1986}, Brunvand {1991}, and Loftin
{1991}. A Christian critique of Morris Cerullo and other advocates of
the "Faith" movement such as E.W. Kenyon, Kenneth Hagin, Kenneth
Copeland, Benny Hinn, John Avanzini, Robert Tilton, Marilyn Hickey, and
Paul Crouch may be found in Hanegraaff {1993}.)
Balsiger has also been politically active. He was involved with the
Coalition on Revival, which is devoted to "rebuilding our civilization
on the principles of the Bible . . . until the day we die," serving on
its steering committee from 1985 to "a few years ago," when he resigned
(personal communication from Jay Grimstead, December 3, 1993; see also
Porteous {1993}. Some information about the COR may be found in McIver,
1988 and Porteous, 1991.) In the 1980's, Balsiger produced a series of
"Biblical Scoreboards," glossy magazines designed to instruct
fundamentalist Christians on how to vote in accordance with the Bible.
He has worked on a number of Republican political campaigns in
California and organized and headed some political organizations, such
as the National Citizens Action Network; the Ban the Soviets Coalition,
which worked to ban the Soviet Union from the 1984 Los Angeles Olympics;
and the Restore a More Benevolent Order Coalition, which worked to help
Soviets defect.
Balsiger sometimes identifies himself as "Dr. David W. Balsiger," and
he has letterhead which identifies him as "David W. Balsiger, L.H.D."
This is an honorary doctor of laws degree from Lincoln Memorial
University in Harrogate, Tennessee (a four-year college which does not
have any doctoral programs), awarded October 4, 1977 for his book _The
Lincoln Conspiracy_. Balsiger's undergraduate career was lengthy--his
_Who's Who_ entry lists five colleges attended between 1964 and 1977,
with a B.A. awarded by National University in San Diego in 1977. Oddly,
Balsiger's _Who's Who_ listing says that he was a student at Chapman
College's World Campus Afloat in 1967-68 and a member of the board of
directors of the same program in 1967. Balsiger says that he was not on
the board of directors, but a member of a student association.
Conclusions
In David Balsiger's most recent public statement about George Jammal's
hoax, he writes:
There is something wrong with the ethics of the news media when
they glorify the acts of humanist hoaxers who intentionally and
successfully deceive 40 million TV viewers; and then blame the
show producer and CBS for not discovering their elaborate hoax.
This is not a case in which the producer or the network is guilty
of deceiving viewers, but rather one more example of humanists who
tout themselves as 'Ethical Humanists' being neither ethical nor
honest when it comes to advancing their hidden agenda (1993).
Had circumstances been different, Balsiger would have had a point. If
Jammal's hoax had really been "elaborate" and carefully constructed to
resist anything less than the most scrupulous and detailed
investigation; if it had not been filled with inconsistencies and
intentional clues; if Balsiger had not been warned about Jammal being a
hoaxer prior to the show's completion; if the show had not otherwise
misrepresented and omitted facts; if Balsiger and Sun had a reputation
for sober and accurate research, then his criticism would carry some
weight.
There are, of course, serious moral questions which should be raised
about the kind of hoax Jammal performed. Is the intent to discredit an
entire world view or to reveal the inadequacies of particular
organizations or individuals? If the latter, is the hoax the only way to
bring public attention to these inadequacies, or are other methods
available which would be about as effective? Are those being hoaxed
given an adequate chance to avoid falling into the trap? (See Bok, 1978
and 1989, for a discussion of moral considerations involving the use of
deception to expose certain kinds of practices. MacDougall {1958, pp.
262-282} describes historical examples of "hoaxes of exposure" designed
to expose excessive credulity and other failings.) Some have accused
Jammal and other hoaxers of seeking personal publicity through the hoax,
and his status as an out-of-work actor cannot be dismissed in this case,
as noted by the Sun psychiatrist who examined Jammal's account.
Whatever Jammal's intent, his hoax has clearly demonstrated the
inadequacy of the research of Sun International Pictures and brought it
to public attention after letter writing campaigns and even books of
criticism have failed to do so. Sun had every chance to avoid being
caught by the hoax, but disregarded the evidence and chose to produce a
program filled with inaccuracies and misrepresentations. Now it must
face the consequences, as must CBS which must take some responsibility
in the matter. Perhaps CBS cannot be expected to test the claims in all
of its "nonfiction" programs, as they claimed in their defense, but they
certainly have access to experts in the scientific and skeptical
communities who could easily have warned them of the questionable nature
of this and other Sun productions. Regular warnings to local television
stations from regional skeptics groups, and to national television
networks from such national skeptics organizations as CSICOP and the
Skeptics Society, are routinely ignored. The consequences can be seen in
this event and will continue to be observed until they show a modicum of
skepticism about what is aired on their stations.
Acknowledgments
Thanks to the following persons who provided materials and information:
Clark Adams, David Bloomberg, Bob Bryant, Bill Crouse, L. Drew Davis,
David Fasold, Alan Feuerbacher, Bill Hamilton, George Jammal, Eric
Jones, Gerald Larue, J. Dave Lewis, John Morris, Gretchen Passantino,
Robert Schadewald, Richard Trott, and Brett Vickers.
Bibliography
Aardsma, G. E. 1989. "Myths Regarding Radiocarbon Dating," ICR _Impact_
No. 189 (March).
Associated Press. 1993. "CBS Defends Untrue Show About Ark," _Chicago
Tribune_ (June 29).
Bailey, L. R. 1978. _Where Is Noah's Ark?_ Nashville, Tenn.:
Abingdon/Festival Books.
Balsiger, D. and Sellier, C. E., Jr. 1976. _In Search of Noah's Ark_.
Los Angeles, Calif.: Sun Classic Books.
Balsiger, D. W. 1993. Letter "To Whom It May Concern," published in
_Skeptical Briefs_, Vol. 3, #4, Dec,. p. 15.
Barker, D. 1993. "In Search Of 'Balance,'" _Freethought Today_ 9(3,
April): 4.
Baugh, C. 1989. "Reverend Baugh Replies...," _NCSE Reports_ 9(6,
November-December): 19.
Berlitz, C. 1987. _The Lost Ship of Noah: In Search of the Ark at
Ararat_. N.Y.: G. P. Putnam's Sons.
_Bible-Science News_. 1993. "Alleged Hoaxes Surround CBS Noah's Ark
Special," _Bible-Science News_ 31(5).
Bloomberg, D. 1993a. "REALLity Check: Noah's Farce," _The REALL News_
(Rational Examination Association of Lincoln Land) 1(2, March): 5-6.
_____.1993b. "Logic Abuse and CBS--A REALLity Check Extra," _The REALL
News_ 1(5, June): 6-7.
_____. 1993c. "REALLity Check: Noah Way!" _The REALL News_ 1(6, July):5.
_____. 1993d. "Incredible Mysteries of Sun Pictures," _The REALL News_
1(8, September): 1,3,7-9.
Bok, S. 1978. _Lying: Moral Choice in Public and Private Life_. N.Y.:
Vintage Books.
_____. 1983. _Secrets: On the Ethics of Concealment and Revelation_.
N.Y.: Vintage Books.
Brunvand, J. H. 1991. "The Missing Day in Time," paper presented at the
Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the
Paranormal 15th Anniversary Conference in Berkeley, California, May
4.
Cerone, D. 1993. "Long Beach Man Admits Ark Hoax," _Los Angeles Times_
(October 30): F1,F17. (Another edition of the _Los Angeles Times_
printed a longer version of this article on the same day with the
headline "Admitting 'Noah's Ark' Hoax" on pages F1,F13.)
Church, J.R. 1993. "The Hoax Makers Are At It Again," _Prophecy in the
News_ 13(9, September):1-4.
Clayton, J. N. 1993. "CBS Ark Story is a Hoax," _Does God Exist?_ 20(5,
September/October). "News & Notes" section.
Cole, J. R. and Godfrey, L. R., editors. 1985. "The Paluxy River
Footprint Mystery--Solved," _Creation/Evolution_ special issue 5(1,
#15): 1-56.
Cole, J. 1986. "Paluxy Creek Footprints in Pittsburgh,"
_Creation/Evolution Newsletter_ 6(5, September/October): 15-16.
_____. 1992. "CBS 'Documentary' Touts Scientific Creationism," _NCSE
Reports_ 12(4, Winter):22.
_____. 1993. "Noah's Ark on CBS," _NCSE Reports_ 13(1, Spring): 4,6.
Cohen, E. D. 1993. "And Now--Psychiatric Wards for Born-Again Christians
Only," _Free Inquiry_ 13(3, Summer): 25-30.
Crouse, B. 1993. "Figment or Fact? The Incredible Discovery of Noah's
Ark," _Ararat Report_ #32(May): 1-7. Excellent, detailed critique of
the CBS/Sun program by Christian Information Ministries,
International, 2050 N. Collins Blvd., Suite 100, Richardson, TX
75080.
CSER. 1993. "CBS Is Criticized for Airing Anti-Evolution 'Noah's Ark'
Program," _Free Inquiry_ 13(3, Summer): 46. Statement to the media
from the Committee for the Scientific Examination of Religion,
originally distributed in March.
Dietz, R. S. (1993) "Ark-Eology: A Frightening Example of Pseudo-
Science," _Geotimes_ 38(9, September): 4.
_Freethought Today_. 1993a. "CBS 'Hoax' To Be Exposed: Jammal To Speak
At FFRF Convention," _Freethought Today_ 10(7, September): 1.
---- (1993b) "CBS Cancels Religious Programs After Hoax Exposed,"
_Freethought Today_ 10(9, November): 3.
Fox, R. 1993. "'The Incredible Discovery of Noah's Ark': An
Archaeological Quest?" _Free Inquiry_ 13(3, Summer): 43-45,47-48.
Hanegraaff, H. H. 1993. "What's Wrong with the Faith Movement, Part One:
E. W. Kenyon and the Twelve Apostles of Another Gospel," _Christian
Research Journal_ (Winter):16-23.
Harker, K. 1993. "Dr. Zark," _BASIS_ (Bay Area Skeptics Information
Sheet) 12(4, March):1-4.
Hastings, R. J. 1989. "Creationists' 'Glen Rose Man' Proves to be a Fish
Tooth (As Expected)," _NCSE Reports_ 9(3, May-June): 14-15.
Hertenstein, M. and Trott, J. 1993. _Selling Satan: The Tragic History
of Mike Warnke_. Chicago, Ill.: Cornerstone Press.
Jaroff, L. 1993. "Phony Arkaeology: In a pseudo documentary, CBS falls
victim to a hoaxer," _Time_ 142(1, July 5): 51.
Josephus, F. 1987. _The Works of Josephus_. Translated by William
Whiston. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers.
Kuban, G. 1986. "Review of ICR _Impact_ Article 151," _Origins Research_
9(1): 10-15.
_____. 1989a. "Retracking Those Incredible Man Tracks," _NCSE Reports_
9(4, July-August).
_____. 1989b. "A Matter of Degree: An Examination of Carl Baugh's
Credentials," _NCSE Reports_ 9(6, November-December): 15-18.
_____. 1989c. "Kuban Replies...," _NCSE Reports_ 9(6, November-
December): 20.
Larue, G. 1993. "Gerald Larue's Rebuttal," _Free Inquiry_ 13(4,
Fall):13,61-63.
Lerner, L. S. 1993. "Old Man Noah Knew a Thing or Two," _BASIS_ (Bay
Area Skeptics Information Sheet) 12(9, October): 5-6.
Lippard, J. 1990. "A Further Examination of the Research of Walter
Brown," _Creation/Evolution_ 9(2, #26, Winter): 17-33.
Loftin, R. W. 1991. "Origin of the Myth About a Missing Day in Time,"
_Skeptical Inquirer_ 15(4, Summer): 350-351.
MacDougall, C. D. (1958) _Hoaxes_. Revised edition. N.Y.: Dover.
Malone, T. 1993. "What Price Fame? Exposing CBS," _Freethought Today_
9(3, April): 4-5.
McIver, T. 1986. "Ancient Tales and Space-Age Myths of Creationist
Evangelism," _Skeptical Inquirer_ 10(3, Spring): 258-276.
_____. 1988. "Christian Reconstructionism, Post-millennialism, and
Creationism," _Creation/Evolution Newsletter_ 8(1):10-11,14-17.
Montagno, M., with Lisle, L. 1977. "A Ship on Ararat?" _Newsweek_ 89(5,
January 31): 56.
Moore, R. A. 1981. "Arkeology: A New Science in Support of Creation?"
_Creation/Evolution_ 2(4, #6, Fall):6-15.
_____. 1983. "The Impossible Voyage of Noah's Ark," _Creation/Evolution_
special issue 4(1, #11, Winter):1-43.
Morris, J. D. 1986a. Transcript of interview with George Jammal. (June
10), 14 pp.
_____. 1986b. "The Paluxy River Mystery," ICR _Impact_ No. 151
(January).
_____. 1986c. "The Paluxy River Mystery," _Nature_ 321(June 19): 722.
_____. 1988. "Continued Research on the Paluxy Tracks," _Acts & Facts_
17(12, December): 3,5.
_____. 1989. "Was 'Lucy' an Ape-man?" _Back to Genesis_ (November):d.
_____. 1993a. "Noah's Ark and CBS," _Acts & Facts_ 22(4, April): 2-3.
_____. 1993b. "Noah's Ark Back in the News," _Acts & Facts_ 22(9,
September): 3-4. Summarized in _Skeptic_ 2(2): 17 as "The Institute
for Creation Research Also Responds."
_____. 1993c. "Did the Frozen Mammoths Die in the Flood or in the Ice
Age?" _Back to Genesis_ No. 59 (November).
Navarra, F. edited with Balsiger, D. (1974) _Noah's Ark: I Touched It_.
Plainfield, N.J.: Logos International.
Pierce, S. D. 1993. "CBS not retreating from 'Ark' or Utah firm that
produced it," _Deseret News_ (July 19): A1, A2.
Porter, D. 1993. "The 'Science' of Noah's Ark: A Critical Review of the
CBS Program," _Skeptic_ 2(1): 19.
Porteous, S. 1991. "Reconstructive Criticism," _Free Inquiry_ 11(2,
Spring): 8-9.
_____. 1993. "Pseudo-Science at CBS: Biblical Specials Trade Credibility
for Ratings," _Extra!_ 6(5, July/August): 17.
Rosenberg, H. 1993a. "CBS on 'Ark': Mum's Still the Word," _Los Angeles
Times_ (July 7):F1,F13 (Calendar Section).
_____. 1993b. "Will CBS See Error of Its Ways?" _Los Angeles Times_
(November 1): F12.
Ross, H. 1993. "The Unsinkable Search for Noah's Ark," _Facts & Faith_
6(5, Spring): 8-9.
Schadewald, R. 1986. "The 1986 International Conference on Creationism,"
_Creation/Evolution Newsletter_ 6(5, September/October): 8-14.
_____. 1993. "CBS TV's Noah's Ark Hoax Exposed," _NCSE Reports_ 13(2,
Summer): 4-5.
Sellier, C. 1993. Letter to Steve Warner, Vice President of CBS. (July
2), 8 pp.
_Skeptic_. 1993. "Pseudo-ARKaeology," _Skeptic_ 2(1): 18.
Stanko, I. 1993. "Open Letter to CBS," _Skeptical Briefs_ 3(1, March):
11.
Sun International Pictures, Inc. 1993a. "Response to Time's Article
'Phony Arkaeology,'" 6 pp. Sun International Pictures, 2500 S. 2300
West, Suite 30, West Valley City, UT 84119. Published in _Skeptic_
2(2):14-17 as "Sun Pictures Responds to 'Phony Arkaeology'
Accusations" and in part in _Free Inquiry_ 13 (4, Fall): 10-12 as
"Sun International Pictures, Inc., Responds to Critics."
_____. 1993b. "Sun's Response to Time's Article 'Phony Arkaeology,'" 6
pp. A further defense of "The Incredible Discovery of Noah's Ark,"
with two pages devoted to a defense of the credibility of Walter
Brown and his "Hydroplate Theory." (Virtually identical to Sellier
{1993}.)
Teeple, H. M. 1978. _The Noah's Ark Nonsense_. Evanston, Ill.: Religion
and Ethics Institute.
Till, F. 1993. "CBS Bible Series Exposed By Another Freethinker: Farrell
Till's Interview Manipulated," _Freethought Today_ 10(7, September):
4.
Trott, J. and Hertenstein, M. 1992. "Selling Satan: The Tragic History
of Michael Warnke," _Cornerstone_ 21(#98):7-9,11-14,16-17,19,30,38.
This article is available in reprint form, with an update, from
_Cornerstone_, 939 W. Wilson Ave., Chicago, IL 60640.
Wiscombe, J. 1993. "Noah's Ark Lark," _Long Beach Press-Telegram_
(August 26): D1, D3.
Zindler, F. 1989. "John Morris vs. the Truth Patrol," _NCSE Reports_
9(5, September-October): 7-9.
Jim Lippard is a Ph.D. candidate in philosophy at the University of
Arizona in Tucson who specializes in the areas of epistemology,
cognitive science and critical thinking. His dissertation is on
epistemology and testimony. He is interested in the
evolution/creationism debate in particular. He can be reached by email
as lippard@ccit.arizona.edu.
E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank