The following quotation is from Robert A. Moore, "Arkeology: A New
Science in Support of Creation?", Creation/Evolution issue VI
(Fall 1981), p. 9:

	  However, two lines of inquiry have thrown a cloud over Navarra's
	achievement.  In the first place, several people, including Colonel
	Sahap Atalay and J.A. daRiquier, two of Navarra's climbing companions,
	have accused Navarra of deliberate fraud, of planting the wood in
	the crevice so that it could later be "discovered."  He has, of
	course, denied this, but the circumstances of his find remain
	suspicious.  And when he led another probe to the same part of the
	mountain in 1969, wood fragments again turned up, but only after he
	had an opportunity to be alone on the glacier.  Such problems prompted
	even true believers such as LaHaye and Morris to comment, "There are
	certain discrepancies in Navarra's account which cast grave shadows
	over its authenticity" (p. 133).
		Second, the dating of the wood has had to be drastically revised.
	The earlier tests used highly dubious techniques, such as density,
	color, and degree of lignitization; since then a number of laboratories
	have tested it by the radiocarbon method, and the dates derived in
	this manner all focus around the eighth century A.D., over three
	thousand years too late for the deluge.  Bailey has studied the dating
	question in some detail, and he shows that the ancient age is quite
	untenable.  So, however the wood came to be in the ice, it did not get
	there from Noah's ark.

The reference to Bailey is to

	Lloyd R. Bailey, _Where is Noah's Ark?_, Nashville: Abingdon, 1978.

Other important sources critical of Noah's ark discoveries are

	William H. Stiebing, Jr., "A Futile Quest: The Search for Noah's
		Ark," Biblical ARchaeology Review 2:2:1 (June 1976), pp. 13-20.
	Howard M. Teeple, _The Noah's Ark Nonsense_, Evanston, Ill.:
		Religion and Ethics Institute, 1978.