There is documented history on Chinese martial arts that has nothing to do with "Ararat Hands" Tang Soo Do, Tae Kwon Do and KArate all have Chiese martial arts roots. Pa Kua (aka Bagua) has its roots in Taoist Circle walking and Taoism is indigenous to China. Xingyi is documented as coming Form Dai family Xinyi with possible influences from Yue Fei and his spear technique. Taijiquan is a bit of a conglomerate that appears to be from some source outside of the Chen family combined with what the Chen family already knew and a bit of an influence from the I Ching (a Taoist text) Wing Chun has a few different possible origins, none even close to the origins of the other CMA styles you listed. As for Praying Mantis, I know little about the style other than there are a few different versions.
Never heard of, can't find any legitimate reference to Ararat Hands and doubt it has any connection to Chinese Martial arts.
What I find amazing in such claims that are attempting to connect all martial arts to one source, be that Shaolin, Ararat hands or some guy named Sid in Babylon is that it seems to be based on the thought that humans are incapable of coming up with things, even similar things, independently from one another. But yet Sir Isaac Newton and Gottfried Leibniz can come up with Calculus at roughly the same time independently of one another and no one bats an eye. So why can't humans, all by themselves, figure out ways of beating the living daylights out of one another with out any external influence at all.
And with that I will end with Shuaijiao, the oldest serving martial at today comes from "jiao di" which is know to have existed in 2697 BC which is over 4700 years ago
Problem here is Sima Qian, the Yellow Emperor Classic and jiao di. Not arguing biblical history or Noah or the ark. Frankly I think that there is a lot of history in the Bible, but over the centuries it has been written and rewritten and changed more than once in the name of religion. And although I believe there are important things in the book, the dates and times are not to be taken to literally. But this is my opinion of the Bible.
And Sima Qian (Chinese historian of the Han dynasty) holds a lot more water than what you are claiming and to respond with things like "Were you there?" and "Sorry you failed church and history." is not going to cut it of you are going to make claims about things that have no historical support, and I am talking the "4300" claim and the "6700" claim as to the creation of the sun. That is so easily refuted by astrological and archeological records and discoveries it is ludicrous to even make such a claim.
Now I am not questioning God, religion or any thing of the like. I am simply saying what you are claiming is incorrect.