U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 10-09-2009, 11:07 AM
 
Location: Somewhere out there
9,618 posts, read 11,569,799 times
Reputation: 3745

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Campbell34 View Post
Well, there are many eyewitness accounts of the Ark of Noah, and we even have satellite photos of a large man-made object in the same spot where the Bible tells us the Ark of Noah landed. Your denial of those facts, only makes me believe you are led by your personal beliefs, and not by the facts on the ground.
Isn't this stupifyingly redundant and exactly like a pre-recorded [but incorrect] message on a loudspeaker.... (I think Hitler employed the exact same brainwashing technique, no?)

"we even have satellite photos of a large man-made object "

"we even have satellite photos of a large man-made object "

"we even have satellite photos of a large man-made object "

"we even have satellite photos of a large man-made object "

No. We. Don't.
You really like to gloss over, to jump to your own unsupported conclusions. To add "fact" to "fancy" at the drop of a hat, don't you? And what's worse, you think you get away with it.

Some anomalous rock outcrops resulted in some expeditions and further, higher-resolution sateliite pics, and X-Ray fluorescence analysis. And what do we still have? A large limetone/basalt outcrop.

Buh-dee-Yah, buh-dee-yah bahdeeyaahhhhh.... That's all folks.

Thanks, Bugs!

*BTW, where's those number calculations? You still struggling over them? I understand... slowly, the light comes on over the head, and then, voila!

 
Old 10-09-2009, 02:11 PM
 
7,654 posts, read 10,043,031 times
Reputation: 496
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rafius View Post
Then it should be extremely easy to find eh?

Ummmm! Helicopter perhaps?

How did you manage that if its under 20 feet of sand?

I wouldn't hold your breath on that one mate!!
They know were it is, yet if it's buried under 80 feet of ice, that makes discovery a little harder. Also, weather conditions make such a venture limited to a few months out of the year. Helicopter use has been restricted by the Turkish government. And in fact, for many years the Turks would not even allow anyone to venture to Ararat's north slope.

In 1979 I first discovered the Chicora, and took chart rocorder readings. I have some very good sonar pictures of the wreck. Yet, I was unalble to relocate the wreck until around 2007. The depth of water has gone from 40 feet to now 12 feet. And most of that is because of the movement of the sand. So like the Ark of Noah, it becomes very difficult to view her. Yet when conditions do improve, it will be possible. The Chicora is over 200 feet long, yet it just goes to show you how nature can really make such large objects disappear.
 
Old 10-09-2009, 03:58 PM
 
Location: Victoria, BC.
31,705 posts, read 32,506,665 times
Reputation: 12969
Quote:
Originally Posted by Campbell34 View Post
They know were it is, yet if it's buried under 80 feet of ice, that makes discovery a little harder. Also, weather conditions make such a venture limited to a few months out of the year. Helicopter use has been restricted by the Turkish government. And in fact, for many years the Turks would not even allow anyone to venture to Ararat's north slope.

In 1979 I first discovered the Chicora, and took chart rocorder readings. I have some very good sonar pictures of the wreck. Yet, I was unalble to relocate the wreck until around 2007. The depth of water has gone from 40 feet to now 12 feet. And most of that is because of the movement of the sand. So like the Ark of Noah, it becomes very difficult to view her. Yet when conditions do improve, it will be possible. The Chicora is over 200 feet long, yet it just goes to show you how nature can really make such large objects disappear.

The Chicora has not been found even though many have been searching for it. If it did actually lie in those shallow depths it would have been discovered years ago. Why make up ludicrous stories? They don't do much for your credibility.
 
Old 10-09-2009, 04:07 PM
 
1,235 posts, read 3,249,110 times
Reputation: 956
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_SqhhJb_P3K...%20dilemma.jpg
 
Old 10-09-2009, 04:51 PM
 
7,654 posts, read 10,043,031 times
Reputation: 496
Quote:
Originally Posted by rifleman View Post
Isn't this stupifyingly redundant and exactly like a pre-recorded [but incorrect] message on a loudspeaker.... (I think Hitler employed the exact same brainwashing technique, no?)

"we even have satellite photos of a large man-made object "

"we even have satellite photos of a large man-made object "

"we even have satellite photos of a large man-made object "

"we even have satellite photos of a large man-made object "

No. We. Don't. You really like to gloss over, to jump to your own unsupported conclusions. To add "fact" to "fancy" at the drop of a hat, don't you? And what's worse, you think you get away with it.

Some anomalous rock outcrops resulted in some expeditions and further, higher-resolution sateliite pics, and X-Ray fluorescence analysis. And what do we still have? A large limetone/basalt outcrop.

Buh-dee-Yah, buh-dee-yah bahdeeyaahhhhh.... That's all folks.

Thanks, Bugs!

*BTW, where's those number calculations? You still struggling over them? I understand... slowly, the light comes on over the head, and then, voila!
rifleman, sometimes I really wish you did the research rather than get on here with your uninformed rants. You do understand, there are (TWO) areas of search for the Ark of Noah. You should, because I have told you in the past. Your anomalous rock outcrop has nothing to do with the area of search I have been pointing to. And that is why in a more recent post I stated you were confusing two areas of search, with one.
Your anomalous rock outcrop was found 17 miles south of Mount Ararat, on a lower slope at around 6,300 feet. Ron Wyatt believed that was Noahs
Ark. Of course this had nothing to do with the Biblical location. And I had dismissed that belief long ago. The real Ark, is located near the very top of Mt. Ararat.

AND YES, WE DO HAVE SATELLITE PHOTOS OF A LARGE MAN-MADE OBJECT UP THERE, AND BROKEN IN TWO.

George Stephen who was a 30 year veteran of remote-sensing, hi-resolution, infra-red and other satellite type photo interpretation stated.

"I looked at the mountain from the 10,000 foot altitude to the top, I'm a (HUNDRED PERCENT SURE) there's two man-made objects up there on the north side of the mountain above the 13,000 foot elevation."

"On that mountain (Ararat) is the rectangular shape of two man-made objects. One above the other. Looks like maybe 1,200 foot difference. Both objects look like they were joined at one time because there's a spectral trail going down from one to the other. They're sitting in a fault on a ledge. The upper one is hanging. They are both in a glacier. Last time I looked there was about 70 foot of ice over the upper object. The lower one I can't tell because it's at too steep of an angle."

"The most peculiar thing about this anomaly is that there are no trails to it that indicate it was constructed on this site. I don't know if this is the original location of this object. Maybe it's been raised up from a lower elevation. Or maybe it was higher and slid down throughout the centuries. IT'S ALMOST LIKE IT CRASHED OR LANDED THERE...

"Personally, I don't believe in Noah's Ark. And frankly, I've no idea what it is."

Way back in 1943 Ed Davis stated he was taken to see Noah's Ark. He stated he could see it was broken in two, and the one section was a little ways away from the other section. He said it had three decks and cages inside. Ed made those statements long before George Stephen made his. Yet George Stephen confirmed that satellite photos show us a man-made object high up on Ararat. And it was broken in two. He confirmed what Ed Davis said he saw, from 40 years before. And George Stephen stated he could confirm that it was man-made with 100 percent accuracy.

Consider link below.

Noah's Ark Search - Mount Ararat
 
Old 10-09-2009, 05:25 PM
 
Location: NZ Wellington
2,782 posts, read 3,789,033 times
Reputation: 592
There have been many sightings of Noah's ark, including the following:

[LIST][*] Berosus, ca. 275 B.C.E., reported remains of it in the mountains of the Gordyaeans in Armenia (p. 15).[*] Flavius Josephus mentions remains of the ark on Baris (16-17).[*] Several writers tell of St. Jacob of Medzpin, who persistently tried to climb Ararat. Angels commanded him to stop trying but brought him a plank from the ark (17-21).[*] Several accounts through history suggest that Armenians have knowledge of and wood from the ark (21-22).[*] In 1952, Harold Williams wrote a story told by Haji Yearam in 1916. According to the story, Yearam helped guide three scientists to the ark in 1856. Upon finding the ark sticking out of a glacier near the summit, the scientists flew into a rage and tried futilely to destroy it. Then they took an oath to keep the discovery a secret and murder anyone who revealed it. About 1918, Williams saw a newspaper article giving a scientist's deathbed confession, which corroborated Yearam's story (43-48).[*] In 1876, English explorer James Bryce found a four-foot long hand-tooled piece of wood on Ararat at the 13,000 feet level (51-55).[*] In 1883, a Turkish commission surveying Ararat for possible avalanche conditions found part of the ark protruding 20 or 30 feet from the foot of a glacier (56-58).[*] In 1887, on his third attempt to find the ark, Prince Nouri of Bhagdad found it on the higher peaks of Ararat (64-67).[*] In 1908 and again in 1910, a local Armenian, Georgie Hagopian, then just a boy, visited the ark with his uncle. The ark was on the edge of a cliff; its wood was like stone (69-72).[*] In 1916, a story by Vladimir Roskovitsky told how he and other Russian aviators sighted the ark, nearly intact, grounded on the shore of a lake on Ararat. An expedition reached the ark about a month later. Photographs and plans were sent to the czar, but the Bolsheviks overthrew the Czar a few days later, and the evidence was lost. Later testimony revealed that that account was 95 percent fiction, but other Russian soldiers have told of hearing of an expedition that discovered Noah's ark in 1917 (76-87).[*] Six Turkish soldiers climbed Ararat and saw the ark in 1916 (90-92).[*] A monestary at Echmiazin hosts a piece of wood reputedly from the ark (93-97).[*] While lost on Ararat in 1936, Hardwicke Knight found timbers of dark, soft wood (98-101).[*] Two American pilots saw the ark several times and once brought a photographer along. The photograph appeared in the Tunisian edition of [I]Stars and Stripes[/I] in 1943. Many people remembered the article, but no copies remain (102-107).[*] Donald Liedmann met a Russian Air Force major in 1938 and 1943 who showed him pictures of the ark. It was mostly buried in a glacier. The photographs have never been released (109-112).[*] In 1948, a Kurdish farmer named Resit reported finding the prow of the ark about 2/3rds the way up Ararat, protruding from ice. The wood was black and too hard for him to cut off a piece (115-116).[*] A 1949 satellite photograph of the Western Plateau of Mt. Ararat shows an elongated box-like object which could be Noah's ark (Morris 2001).[*] In 1955, after two unsuccessful searches, Fernand Navarra found hand-hewn wood in the ice at the 13,750 foot level. He retrieved a small sample of the wood. However, even die-hard arkeologists suspect fraud. In 1969, small pieces of wood were found where Navarra directed people to dig. Again, fraud is suspected (129-134, 158-160).[*] George Green photographed the ark from a helicopter in 1953, but his pictures aroused no serious interest, and they are now lost (135-137).[*] The ERTS satellite photographed Noah's ark in 1973, but the satellite's resolution was insufficient (203-206).[/LIST]The reports are inconsistent. The ark has been found in different places on the mountain (and on different mountains, if you include earlier accounts). Its condition varies from almost intact to broken in half to only isolated timbers. The character of the wood varies from too hard to cut to falling apart at a touch. Some accounts make it sound like local residents visited the ark routinely, while other accounts stress the hardships encountered.

Noah's ark is the sort of subject that people would tell stories about. Some people might be motivated by misplaced piety to make up stories. Some have been motivated by money. Others might elaborate a story simply to get attention. Since the ark story is so famous, some people might conclude they have found the ark on the basis of ambiguous evidence. For example, they might misinterpret a blurry photograph or a shape seen through fog, or they might conclude that any wood they find is from the ark, although wood has been carried up Ararat in historical times for building crosses and huts.

What the reports of ark sightings have in common is that none has been corroborated. Most have few if any witnesses. Photographs and newspaper articles disappear, sometimes inexplicably, or they are too vague to be meaningful. Physical evidence either is not retrieved, is faked, or comes from recent wood carried up the mountain. They have the appearance of fables, not fact.
 
Old 10-09-2009, 05:34 PM
 
Location: Nashville, Tn
7,916 posts, read 17,033,760 times
Reputation: 5470
Campbell34 wrote:
Quote:
Way back in 1943 Ed Davis stated he was taken to see Noah's Ark. He stated he could see it was broken in two, and the one section was a little ways away from the other section. He said it had three decks and cages inside. Ed made those statements long before George Stephen made his. Yet George Stephen confirmed that satellite photos show us a man-made object high up on Ararat. And it was broken in two. He confirmed what Ed Davis said he saw, from 40 years before. And George Stephen stated he could confirm that it was man-made with 100 percent accuracy.

Consider link below.
I looked at the link and wasn't impressed. The problem we have is that no one is able to produce a photograph or any evidence whatsoever that this ark is really there. You keep saying that we have satellite images of a manmade structure but that's simply not true and is just a wildly exaggerated version of someone's imagination. All of these people who supposedly examined the ark seemed to have forgotten their cameras. If this ark were really up there I have no doubt that we'd have a massive amount of evidence but in fact we don't have any.
 
Old 10-09-2009, 07:04 PM
 
73 posts, read 106,072 times
Reputation: 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by Campbell34 View Post
Consider link below.

[URL="http://www.noahsarksearch.com/riddleofararat.htm"]Noah's Ark Search - Mount Ararat[/URL]
Link is fail. So don't bother.

The writer in that said link is only bent on writing riveting stories using hear-say that is threaded with zero facts. As you would expect, no photos were found. Its like either people forget to bring a camera or use a monkey to take pictures when on this important fact finding journey. Go figure.
 
Old 10-10-2009, 01:28 AM
Status: "It seems the Block has been taken off. Thank you" (set 5 days ago)
 
Location: S. Wales.
42,665 posts, read 12,159,752 times
Reputation: 5377
Quote:
Originally Posted by jezusxtain View Post
Link is fail. So don't bother.

The writer in that said link is only bent on writing riveting stories using hear-say that is threaded with zero facts. As you would expect, no photos were found. Its like either people forget to bring a camera or use a monkey to take pictures when on this important fact finding journey. Go figure.
I was able to access the link ok, but it's the familiar source of some of Campbell's unquestioning cut - and - paste material so maybe you are right in that it is 'Fail' in that sense.

I await Rifleman's analysis of any coherence in the various locations. I can understand Campbell's frustration at apparently being told that the old rock outcrop failed Ark discredits this sighting. I only know that he is linking the story of some bod discovering a buried wooden structure on a likely mountain with a claim than there is some man- made structure on a mountain. Same location? If it isn't that is a serious flaw. If it is, then it's a plus in the argument that it might be worth investigating, as distinct from claiming that it proves the literal truth of Genesis.

The only photos I've seen are some aerial shots of vague boat - shaped depressions in snow (the ark is supposed to be an elogated rectangle), a shot of some curious shapes that might be interpreted as ship - ribs sticking up out of the snow (which doesn't quite fit with the story of decending into the depths to find wooden cages still intact) and a block of melted ice and snow which looks nothing like the other photo and which is accompanied by a real eye - of - faith sketch of an Ark lying on its side.

That, so far is what we have and it's not a lot better than the evidence presented for undersea cities. We have to remain curious but unconvinced at this stage.
 
Old 10-10-2009, 01:41 AM
 
Location: dfw, tx
212 posts, read 514,621 times
Reputation: 95
Ok here is a hypothetical question if noah landed on top of the mountain how did he get down the mountain.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2020, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top