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.
Mt Ararat expeditions require permits from the Military and three other Ministries, as well the local authorities. The permit procedures (LAST FROM 2 TO 4 MONTHS). Anatolian Adventures provides these permits for the teams and climbers. We do not start the procedures until you make your 35% non-refundable deposit. Mount Ararat Expedition
I'm not twisting any facts, I don't believe you know what your talking about.
I didn't see anything in that link like:
Please be advised that your trip may be completely wasted as the summit of Ararat is covered in ice which is half-a-mile deep and can only be reached during exceptionally warm summers.... and as we can't actually tell when one of those is going to happen.... it all may be a waste of money.
Well I'm 100% certain that I'm irresitible to young girls.......but it don't make it so brother!!
George Stephen is a military trained 30 year veteran of remote-sensing, hi-resolution, infra-red and other satellite type photo interpretation. Another words, he's a professional in his field.
And George explains how they draw their conclusions.
"The process I use is a Photo Analysis Material Spectra (PAMS). We pull up a photo from a satellite, I can't tell you which one, but it's available. The photograph is put into one of our own processes which is a laser process that takes a spectra reading. We work with 64 different shades of every color. Each one of those shades means something that is going on with that anomaly or target. Then we use 'perforation' in which we take 'plugs' out of that area. In other words, instead of looking for the needle in the haystack, we remove the haystack. We perforate the area and pull those plugs until we come up with an 'image' of whatever is in the target area."
"On that mountain (Ararat) is the rectangular shape of two man-made organic objects. One above the other. Looks like maybe 1200 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. The'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."
"I can't tell you what it's made of, but it's not metal and it's not rock. It would have to be organic, perhaps wood. It's ancient but I'm not saying it's the Ark because I haven't seen it. All I can say is that I'm hundred percent sure it's a man-made object. But for somebody to take something up there, to haul it there, to build a thing of this size would be an amazing feat."
"The most peculiar thing about this anomaly, is that there are no trails to it that indicate it was constructed on this site."
It's almost like it crashed or landed there...
George Stephen also states. "Personlly, I don't believe in Noah's Ark. And frankly, I've no idea what it is."
The Bible tells us that Noah's Ark landed on the very mountain that George Stephen was looking at.
Please be advised that your trip may be completely wasted as the summit of Ararat is covered in ice which is half-a-mile deep and can only be reached during exceptionally warm summers.... and as we can't actually tell when one of those is going to happen.... it all may be a waste of money.
You do make me laugh bro!!
I never said anything about Ararat having half mile deep ice.
And most people that climb Ararat, are not looking for Noahs Ark. So what's your point?
I simply stated that I was not twisting facts, and you were wrong when you dismissed the two months needed to secure permits to make the climb.
"On that mountain (Ararat) is the rectangular shape of two man-made organic objects. One above the other. Looks like maybe 1200 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. The'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."
"I can't tell you what it's made of, but it's not metal and it's not rock. It would have to be organic, perhaps wood. It's ancient but I'm not saying it's the Ark because I haven't seen it. All I can say is that I'm hundred percent sure it's a man-made object. But for somebody to take something up there, to haul it there, to build a thing of this size would be an amazing feat."
Quote:
George Stephen also states. "Personlly, I don't believe in Noah's Ark. And frankly, I've no idea what it is."
Do you even read what you post? From this post, you decide that this "thing", if it even really exists, must be your ark. You cite this claim as proof, even when the person you are quoting says he doesn't know what he is seeing.
Of course, this fits in perfectly with your continued methodology of mis-statement and innuendo with claims of their being true.
So. Two different posts, one from a guy who is (or rather, was... he's dead now, as of 1990.) Technologies have blossomed since then, Tom. Or do you honestly think all scientific methods have stagnated since the Spanish Inquisition tried to suppress active curiosity? (They failed, sadly for Christianity's future...)
My link from last spring, which I re-posted here a few days ago, noted that X-Ray fluorescence, which George Stephen could have only wished he'd had, can and does accurately identify the materials it's scanning. A brief re-explanation for you and others:
(Ahem...)
In X-Ray fluorescence remote sensing, directed and focused X-Rays impinge on target artifacts or areas of geological interest. They cause a temporary exictation of the target molecules, which "fluoresce" (re-emit the temporarily captured energy) with a typical signature waveband reflectance. The addition of laser light can enhance this effect, but this is for now restricted to lab conditions due to requirements for proximity of the laser.
It's absolutely inerrant in separatingout widely differing materials such as wood, petrified wood, and different types of rocks that originated from different original base materials. Examples: sedimentary rock (limestone), volcanic rock (basalt), granitic and other types. Heavily mineralized rock, known as "petrified", is no longer "wood" per se, it's organic constituents having been systematically replaced over long periods of time (in the natural environment versus in a lab), and do require unique conditions of long-exposure permeation by heavily mineralized waters. not near-pure meltwater. Such heavily mineralized waters do occur in the Yellowstone caldera, which is hardly similar to Mt. Ararat. In Yellowstone, YSM has correctly noted, petrification has occured in much shorter time periods but as it relates to Ararat, so what?
furhter reding, for the actually interested and curious:
George Stephen makes a lot of really unscientific assumptive statements which would have him thrown out of any conference proceedings or journal publications. You provided them to us, right above. let's examine them, individually, shall we?
1) "I can't tell you what it's made of, but it's not metal and it's not rock.
And he knows this how?
2) It would have to be organic, perhaps wood.
Ditto.
3) It's ancient...
Assumption. How does he know this? Did he isotope-age it?
4) but I'm not saying it's the Ark because I haven't seen it.
So. He hasn't seen it, but it's definitely organic. And ancient.
5) All I can say is that I'm hundred percent sure it's a man-made object.
Oh really? 100 percent SURE? Really. Really, Tom? You buying this one? You'd bet your life on it? Really? I thought not. Because if so, you'd likely end up dead.
6) But for somebody to take something up there, to haul it there, to build a thing of this size would be an amazing feat."
Agreed. Hardly the sole reason to deduce it's a man-made objec, esp. when others who have visited or photo'd it have not come to that conclusion. That's OK, because later, more elegant, more focused, more credible remote sensing analysis done in 1999, proved it to be limestone/basalt. That would be this particular formation, with the sidenote that this is not in any way unusual for geological formations in the area.
This George of yours was quite the assumptive "scientist", I'd say. Unlike myself and others who post here. He blows his own credibility out of the water in light of a normal logical analysis of his own statements pointed out above. No scientist would dare to venture such tripe, and yet simply because it supports your delusions, you buy into it without so much as a tiny whimper of protest.
I mean, honestly, Tom, can you never admit that something someone says is perhaps a bit odd or a stretch? Seems not. You even support things that Christians fight about, like the Shroud; one Christian fundy says it's The shroud, another says the bible tells us Jesus' shroud was in strips so thhis isn't The shroud.
For you, they're BOTH right. What if some prophet tells you that Jesus was a baboon? That true also? Is it all true, no matter what is said, by whomever? As long as they're Christians?
And you wonder why we can't let up on you...
If the late, great George Stephen's arguments are all OK with you, and meet your personal high standards for intellectually honest and scientifically literate data collection, interpretation and conclusions, you have much to learn, grasshopper. You do not get to leave the temple quite yet!
"Stubborn" ain't the right word for yah, buddy.
(PS: a piece of advice for your future posts, Tom. Next time you find some classy bit of info on AiG, or on the Kent Hovind Circus Side Show of Horrors, I'd suggest you check out the people noted and quoted as if you were one of us skeptics. Why? Because so far, you have yet to ever produce someone who is not easily discredited under the light of honest validation.
By their association with non-existant faked-up Christian Universities, or by their known predilection to lie pathologically ,or with their frantic and desperate mis-references or purposeful mis-direction or omission of the truth. Or by their own obviously assumptive statements (see above), or their use of nonsense methods (C14 dating of ICA Stones, or providing GPs coordinates when they could not have possibly attained them when they said they did).
And stop automatically discounting the credibility, experience and knowledge of all atheists as if we're just the Spawn of the Devil, with a limited, twisted, assumptive and biased worldview. Obviously we actually have a demosnstrably larger worldview than you are willing to accept, proven over and over and over again here on C-D's documented posts. We, unlike you, are unafraid of knowlege and learning.
We have here a wide assortment of secular geologists, archeologists, biologists, evolutionists, engineers, paleontologists, thinkers and philosophers. According to you, they're ALL wrong, and you're ALWAYS right.
Hmmm... This doesn't signal you in any way, Tom? That we're all wrong, and you're always right? That sound logical?
Again, back inside the temple, grasshopper. You'll only hurt yourself out there in the real world!
If ice is the single debunker of the flood, why do whe have airplanes from 1943 deep in ice that would be considered to be many hundreds of years old? Only false assumptions about the age of ice, is the single biggest debunker of the flood.
No dear boy, the ice cores of the antarctic are truly real facts and evidence. You cannot extrapolate your aeryplanes to the other end of the globe because the annual precipitation is far less. But as I asserted, the same "principle" of tree rings is seen in Varves and Ice Cores yet you lot stand on your heads and whistle yankee doodle out of your ..... to try and make these facts go away. Had we only Ice cores, then maybe your aeryplanes theory would hold some credence. However, because the ice cores match known recent volcanic events like Krakatoa (19th century) it pretty much sums up the accuracy of the cores.
Why not suggest to your buddy Kent Hovind to come to Africa. I will gladly be his guide for a small fee and show him ALL the evidence here that debunks his YEC claims.
But I guess that is out of the question him living on "planet USA" while the rest of us live on planet earth.
If he gives me a few weeks to prepare, I can set up meetings with paleontologists, you won't believe what the folk are digging up recently, almost every other night on the news.
We just keep finding more and more evidence unlike your lot that only have eyewitness testimonies while we have real facts like fossils et al.
To the discerning reader, it is obvious you are grasping at straws. Lemme know when you are ready to debunk the Victoria waterfalls gorges age, I still have all my pics I saved for the benefit of the readers. Let us see who's facts stand up to scrutiny OK? When we are done with that, we can move onto the cave formations.
Question: which is it, a one-piece Ark or one broken in two? Ice or stone or petrified or real wood? on or under the ice? Shall I wait for you to tell me that it's now broken in two according to your previous posts and links?
OK then. Then 'splain this one that I just found:
Imaging the Ararat Anomaly | GPS World (http://www.gpsworld.com/gis/earth-imaging-and-remote-sensing/imaging-ararat-anomaly-4847 - broken link)
It notes that a single bow to stern object had been identified by QuickBird and IKONOS, as well as other remote photos sensing efforts, but that, as of 2003...
"Thanks to QuickBird's high-resolution imagery, Rod Franz, a satellite imagery analyst, was able to make a near-precise determination of the Anomaly's length. Using RemoteView Professional, he determined...
(ahem; a one-piece anomaly)
the length of the object to be about 1,015 feet long from what is apparently the "bow" to the "stern." The software also has the ability to adjust brightness, contrast, haze, sharpness, and other factors in imagery of the deeply buried object of interest.
(Now then...)
Using this technology, Franz was unable to detect anything hidden under the ice and snow."
__________________________________________
And of course, there are those crazy sceptics, like Dr. el-Baz, who states:
"Image interpretation is an art," said Farouk El-Baz, Director of the Boston University Center for Remote Sensing.
"One has to be familiar with Sun lighting effects on the shape of observed features," El-Baz said. "Very slight changes in slope modify shadow shapes that affect the interpretations.
Up to this time, all the images I have seen can be interpreted as natural landforms. The feature that has been interpreted as the 'Ararat Anomaly' is to me a ledge of rock in partial shadow, with varied thickness of snow and ice cover.
Huh? What? Which is it, one-piece, or broken in two and partially slid down the slope? One piece or two? Under or over the ice? Wood, or stone? Or snow and ice?
All the current, latest Hi-Rez, Hi-Tech analyses tell us:
1) one piece
2) limestone/basalt outcroppping
3) nothing under the ice
4) geologic in origin, and not an anomaly at all.
But.. fundy Christians assure us, it's:
1) two piece, broken and in two locations
2) petrified wood, not rock.
3) Partially under the ice, mostly. Sometimes. Or not.
4) obviously man-made. Not an anomaly. They just "know it"!*
(*eyes scrinched together real tight, fingers crossed, hand firmly on the bible, "hopety hope hope hope."..)
From two distinct general sources: (1) modern high-tech geo-scientists, with credible scientific backing, including NASA, NatGeo, various Geological Surveys and various interested universities.
or...
(2) various wishful Christian websites, expeditions that never actually occurred when funding or permits fell through, but they still made "conclusions", deliriously wishful AF pilots in 1948, George Stephen using the science of the day in 1989, and Kent Hovind, who offers us a special class of credibility all unto itself...(he's in a Federal Prison right now for lying to the IRS...)
My personal favorite: "Alien robot found in photos of Ararat Anomaly. CIA suppresses this info!" Check out these convincing photos, the same as other Christian interpreters also use to support their fanciful thinking...
Huh? Well.... I suppose IT'S ALL RIGHT, huh Tom? Even the "wrong" stuff is right. I'm SO confused. Guess I'll just give up and Go With God!
Last edited by rifleman; 10-14-2009 at 03:16 PM..
Reason: typoz and truths
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.
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.
You got some more 'splainin' to do, Tom..
