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.
Well, I did not neglect to mention any part, because that was an account I had never researched. However now that I have, I think you need to understand that the story was not made up by Floyd Gurley. The story in question came from Mr. Benjamin Franklin Allen. Mr Floyd Gurley rewrote up the research of Bemjamin Franklin Allen in story form, and that was to make it, a more interesting read. Gurley embellished the account, yet it was an account that was based on the findings of two Russian pilots.
IT APPEARS YOUR LINK FAILED TO MENTION THAT. NOW DO YOU FIND THAT FACT A LITTLE BIZARRE? LOL
Six years latter the Roskovitsky account was found in the White Russian publication. It was far more detailed, and it was written by Colonel Alexander Adolf Koor in October of 1945. Gurley had never heard of this account since it was a Russian publication. In the Koor account it speaks of the two-expeditions that were conducted by the Czar as a result of what the pilots in question saw on Ararat.
Now if your intrested in the Russian Expedition of 1916-1917, then consider the link below. Family members of those associated with the actual members that went on this expedition, confirmed, that the Ark was found on Mt. Ararat.
It talks about just how much info Allen gave to Gurley. Gurley made up the name of the pilot and all of the "details". The book I linked to calls into question the credibility of Koor who was suspected of making up details after reading the fabricated story by Gurley. Koor's "details" were too much like the made up details by Gurley.
noah's ark found at 13.000 feet???? if all the ice on the planet melted it would only raise sea level like 230 feet.. ohhh wait there was a lot more water an planet earth 4800 years ago, well ancient astronaut theorists say aliens came to planet earth and took some of the water so they could go planet hopping.. thirsty little aliens hope they don't come back for more
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaymax
According to the website Campbell himself provided, the story of the Russian pilot was published in New Eden Magazine in 1939 and was made up by the editor Floyd Gurley.
Campbell just neglected to mention the part on the website which said the story was a complete fabrication.
Bizarre...
The video link thoughtfully provided by ACEsydney is quite entertaining, but it is in err on several key issues.
1. The significant change in oceanic and fresh water salinities (one is salty, the other is not...) would essentially kill all aquatic life. So Noah would also have to have taken care of those 105,000 additional species, times two (NOTE: A recent NatGeo show about life under the sea ice in Antarctica indicated they were finding entirely new species at the rate of 8 per day... Imagine that count over the entire world?) So in fact, we do have about 100 million species of plant and animal to be cared for. Times about 40 -50 of each sex [i.e.: 80 - 100 of a mating species, per species...] for the larger, sexual reproducers. total; that's 8 Billion organisms, but hey; let's be conservative and reduce that by a factor of, say, 75%: Heck! Noah only had to safely board and house.... (thimk, thimk...) 2 (TWO) B (BILLION) larger-than-a-bacterium organisms. All loaded in one rather busy day...
Well, good thing there wasn't a "Union of Organism Loaders", huh? (Can you say "Overtime Pay"???)
2. The video also failed to mention that all land-based plant life would also not endure an 18 month, or longer, inundation by salty water. All that would be dead as well, requiring Noah have a fully capable arboretum and herbarium onboard. With loads of fresh, and also correctly saline, water. Oh, and food appropriate for each species.
(Best gather those requisite bamboo shoots for the mountain gorillas, and what is it that Koalas will ONLY eat? Oh yeah: this from the web:
"Once koalas are out on their own, their diet consists of primarily eucalyptus leaves. These are low in protein, high with indigestible substances, and have phenolic and terpene compounds which are toxic to most other animals. Average koalas eat 500 grams of eucalyptus leaves every day."
(Well then; it's best that old Noah keep them euc-leaves properly and securely stored, huh? So: 500 grams/koala X a minimum of 80 animals X 18 mo X 30 days/mo = 23,760,000,000, that's Billion, grams, friends... just for the Koalas alone...) divided by 454 grams per pound, to get, you know, a nicer, smaller number, = "only" 52,334,801 lb (or, even better: 27,000 tons...) of fresh euc leaves. How veddy, veddy plausible.)
And right now, I'm watching some robins (T. migratorius spp.) pulling worms out of my lawn. I read just last week, on the web, that they typically pull and eat 8 - 10 per hour for at least 6 h each day, more when they are feeding their young. Let's forget those "extremes" for a moment, shall we? Conveniently? So there's Noah, with his two dehydrating worms, and 80 robins eying them hungrily. Quick math, one more time: 80 birds, times 6h/bird foraging/day X 8 worms/hr, X 18 mo X 30 days/mo = oh heck, that's easy. Noah had to only have (and keep alive...) 2,073,600 worms. Just for the N. American Robins alone! Yup.)
3. Plus the necessary food and water for all his lucky passengers and plants, all now packed into a more reasonable, oh, 0.05 cubic inches per species.
"Stop crowding me, or I'll eat you!" (overheard being uttered by a very crowded T-Rex...)
4. Finally, it's also proven ecological fact that you cannotrestart, or even sustain, a viable population of anything with only two of each. Please: check out the California condor sitch, where they are very worried about the fact there's now less than 100 of them left, total. They'll likely go extinct soon, but we're actively protecting them and their habitat, which has food and water! We even provide "Condor popsicles", which are frozen deer carcasses on a big stake. That what Noah did, Tom?
So... what if one of the Noah's pairs dies, or, as a natural prey species, is quickly devoured, right there on Ararat's lifeless slopes, by, let's say, just one of those just-released co-existing T-Rexs, or more rationally, a hungry lion pair. What, did God forbid them from acting normally until the "herd" was re-developed to it's original numbers, let's say 10 years later??
What did they eat in the meantime then? Old rotted vegetation? Ice? Or drink? Salty water?
Meantime, all salmon, and sharks, require rapidly moving, highly oxygenated water. Tropical fish species require the right salinity and water temp. And light regimes. So how was all this exactly maintained down in the lightless, unheated barge's deepest levels? It's hard enough for a typical major aquarium to always get it right. (I know, I know: YSM assures us that Noah had secret, yet to ever be demonstrated, wireless fuel-less light sources, all neatly wired up in there... Big sigh# 2).
This is so pathologically impossible, it's downright laughable. The requisite volume of secret water, the lack of suitable habitat on their trip and after dis-embarkation, the impossible trip back home, the total lack of resources or available size on the barge, the total catastrophic conditions on a flood-devastated land, not to mention the complete alteration of the aquatic environment, and the fact that two of each just doesn't work out....
("Damned arrogant and assumptive scientists and their illogical and incorrect calculators!")
And yet, C34 continues to argue fervently about now-known-to-be faked facts about Russian fly-overs. and other Ark stories. (Tom; didn't you see or read the link by Jaymax, #294, about how the story was totally faked? I guess not.) And then he rolls in ever-more absurd "evidence" as time goes on.
What's that they say about folks who busy themselves re-organizing the deckchairs on the Titanic after it hit the 'berg?
C'mon guys; let's go get a coffee. There's nothing to be gained or learned here any more. It's like trying to reason with a mushroom.
It talks about just how much info Allen gave to Gurley. Gurley made up the name of the pilot and all of the "details". The book I linked to calls into question the credibility of Koor who was suspected of making up details after reading the fabricated story by Gurley. Koor's "details" were too much like the made up details by Gurley.
The problem is, if we could leave it at just Allen, Gurley, and Koor, one would have reason to doubt such a story. However, the story goes way beyond these guys. Numerous family memebers tell of the Russian Expedition from 1916-1917. Are we to assume they are all lying to us? And all the accounts of what was found up there are pretty much in agreement. We even have two personal accounts from two men that were actually on the Expedition, are they lying as well? Now we have Noah's Ark ministeries telling us the samething. We have the account of Ed Davis, and George Hagopian, ect. The only way you can believe that the Ark is not on Mt. Ararat. Is if you are willing to believe that everyone that has claimed to of seen it first hand, are all liars. And that I find impossible to believe. Especially when there have been so many eyewitiness accounts overtime. Ark Ministeries has the video, and the still shots. They are going back up there with others. If they were lying, they would not be planning another trip.
"Let's see: One deck chair over here, the other... (ooops, we seem to be tilting an awful lot... wonder what THAT means..). Oh well. Put another one over here, Martha."
The blatantly obvious answer to your other question: The Chinese Theme Park developers want money. That's it. That's all. They prey on the gullible. After all, Tom, you still haven't answered that other burning question: "Where's the report they promised last time?"
The only bird the nests above 10,000 feet is the Himalayan snow ¢ock, and it nests in a bare ground scrape. (no straw)
Not true, the Rufous-necked Scimitar Babbler is found in Nepal, and builds it's nest of dry grass, and has been found nesting at 12,000 feet. In northern Chilean Andes a Flamingo nest was found at 13,000 feet. Bar-Headed Geese migrate over the Himalayas and have been recorded as high as 27,880 feet. A large African vulture collided with an aircraft at 37,000 feet. The Bateleur acrobat Eagle will be found at altitudes of 14,000 feet. A himalayan mountain climber at 16,000 feet was amazed when a flock of geese flew northward about two miles over his head honking as they went. At 14,000 feet storcks and crans were flying so high that they could be seen only throught field glasses. To suggest that birds are some how limited to nesting at 10,000 feet, would be ridiculous. Of course, if one did not want to believe that a bird could nest in the Ark of Noah found at 13,000 feet. Well, I could see why someone would want to believe that. LOL
Not true, the Rufous-necked Scimitar Babbler is found in Nepal, and builds it's nest of dry grass, and has been found nesting at 12,000 feet. In northern Chilean Andes a Flamingo nest was found at 13,000 feet. Bar-Headed Geese migrate over the Himalayas and have been recorded as high as 27,880 feet. A large African vulture collided with an aircraft at 37,000 feet. The Bateleur acrobat Eagle will be found at altitudes of 14,000 feet. A himalayan mountain climber at 16,000 feet was amazed when a flock of geese flew northward about two miles over his head honking as they went. At 14,000 feet storcks and crans were flying so high that they could be seen only throught field glasses. To suggest that birds are some how limited to nesting at 10,000 feet, would be ridiculous. Of course, if one did not want to believe that a bird could nest in the Ark of Noah found at 13,000 feet. Well, I could see why someone would want to believe that. LOL
Well I read the whole link Campbell and I didn't see anything there about the height at which birds nest. It's all about migration and the height at which some birds fly during migration. Ashville was talking about nesting not flying.
Who said the nesting occured at the top of Mt.Ararat?
Mt. Ararat rises almost to 17,000 feet above sea level. The vessel that Noahs Ark ministeries discovered, is at an altitude of 13,000 feet. Clearly almost 4,000 feet below the top of the mountain. So for you to suggest we are talking about mountain steppes at the top of Mt. Ararat. Shows me, your really not paying attention to the data given.
And again, I must repeat myself. You said raptors are going to choose twigs and branches, not rocks and snow. And I have already stated for the third time now, that the Ark has not always been covered with rocks and snow. In the recent past, sections of the Ark were visible. And people could actually walk up to it during a series of very hot summers. Why do you push the false belief that the object in question has always been covered with snow? Especially, when numerous eyewitiness accounts tell you the oppsite.
And there is a lake on Mt. Ararat, so you would be wrong again. During the hot spells, the Ark is partially submerged in a lake as reported by others who have viewed it. During the summer thaw of 1916, a Russian Imperial Air Force lieutenant noticed a half-frozen lake in a gully on the side of Mt. Ararat. Flying near the lake, he saw half the hull of some sort of ship poking out above the lake surface, and reported this to his captain. Account found in link below.
You seem to be expressing a lot of assumptions, and personal opinions here. Yet such assumptions and opinions have little to do with the stated historical accounts. And are most likely motivated by a bias opinion of disbelief, rather then a clear understanding of the facts. Sadly, I see a lot of this here.
Assumptions and personal opinions, you say? My reply was in response to YOUR post. Now you're quibbling over my expression about the 'top of the mountain'. It was a figure of speech Campbell. Sure, 17,000 feet is a lot higher than 13,000, but if you think 13,000 feet is insignificant, you need to think again.
Let's have another look at the statement YOU made that I replied to:
Quote:
The Ararat valley has the greatest variety of birds in Armenia, and the largest population of water birds. In the Spring time, the marshes, fish ponds, river beds and lakes are filled with nesting birds.
In the upper mountain cliffs you will find the Golden Eagle, the Imperial Eagle, the Booted Eagle, the Eurasian Black Vulture, ect.
On the mountain slopes you will find the Red footed Fallon, and on the mountain steppe you will find the greater Spotted Eagle, and the Stepp Eagle, ect.
And the Ark would be a real attraction to such birds, because it offered shelter at a high altitude.
You included:
- Lowlands (marshes, fish ponds, river bed and lakes)
- Mountain steppes
What do lowland regions and mountain steppes have to do with birds nesting on the mountain at 13,000 feet? It has nothing to do with it whatsoever.
You're also trying to deflect the issue by saying (with regard to twigs and branches used as nesting materials by raptors) that the Ark has not always been covered by rocks and snow. I think you're missing the point. Take a look at some of the photos posted of the location of the so-called recent finding of the Ark, and any of the location photos you've posted in the past. Do you see ANY sign of trees, brush or other vegetation in any of those photos? Do you think raptors are going to haul twigs and branches up from the lower elevations in order to build a nest deep inside a soggy icebox where there's nothing around but rocks and snow during the off-chance the weather is warm enough to thaw things out enough to allow for a small entry hole to a structure virtually buried in ice? If such a thaw is significant enough, common sense should tell you that the interior of such a structure would be extremely wet from icy meltwater. Not very condusive for raising chicks.
If that isn't convincing enough for you, how about this. The recent photos don't show any twigs or branches in the structure. It shows straw. Raptors are not likely to be using straw to build nests. They generally use twigs and small branches. That would rule out raptors as nest makers and leave mostly smaller birds. But it's pretty hard to imagine smaller birds hauling straw up the mountain to build a nest inside a heavily soaked refrigerator. So how then did the straw get there?
With regard to any half-frozen lakes at the higher elevations of Ararat, I suppose it depends on what YOU imagine a lake to be. Okay, so let's say you're right, that the structure was covered by 70 feet of ice (frozen water), and was visible during longer periods of warm weather. The structure is still going to have loads of icy water pouring in from cracks. If the Ark is estimated to be somewhere between 45' to 55' tall, then the so-called lake would have to be around 115' to 125' deep to be able to cover it with 70' of ice. While I can't say it's impossible for a pocket of water-ice on a mountain to be that deep, I'm a bit skeptical about it at a 13,000 foot altitude of a volcanic peak, unless it's inside the cone itself. But ALL of the images I've seen you present seem to show views that are not inside the cone, but on the outside and some 4000 feet below the peak.
Last of all, where exactly do you get off by telling people who happen to disagree with you that their opinions are biased, assumptions, etc., etc.? And yours aren't biased assumptions? Let's see, didn't you say "For years the Ark was exposed to birds and beast. Nesting is a real possibility"? Adding stuff about birds nesting in marshes and eagles flying around mountain steppes (for Pete's sake you don't seem to know what steppes are) have absolutely nothing to do with "proving" your point about the so-called Ark 'finding' way up on barren region of the mountain or that birds brought in straw for nesting. And what about the beasts? What beasts?
Not true, the Rufous-necked Scimitar Babbler is found in Nepal, and builds it's nest of dry grass, and has been found nesting at 12,000 feet. In northern Chilean Andes a Flamingo nest was found at 13,000 feet. Bar-Headed Geese migrate over the Himalayas and have been recorded as high as 27,880 feet. A large African vulture collided with an aircraft at 37,000 feet. The Bateleur acrobat Eagle will be found at altitudes of 14,000 feet. A himalayan mountain climber at 16,000 feet was amazed when a flock of geese flew northward about two miles over his head honking as they went. At 14,000 feet storcks and crans were flying so high that they could be seen only throught field glasses. To suggest that birds are some how limited to nesting at 10,000 feet, would be ridiculous. Of course, if one did not want to believe that a bird could nest in the Ark of Noah found at 13,000 feet. Well, I could see why someone would want to believe that. LOL
Flying at high altitudes is a different matter. Links please, regarding high altitude nesting of the Rufous-necked Scimitar Babbler and others. The Migration of Birds link mentions nothing about nesting.
"What beast?" you ask? Why... this beast of course!
The Abominable Snowman on Flickr - Photo Sharing! (http://www.flickr.com/photos/coreydorsey/3372098505/ - broken link)
Right there! In the ice cave! A photo! Proof!
(And you doubted Tom.... shame!)
LOL! The flying Abominable Snowman, no doubt nesting in Disneyland's Matterhorn after laying several brown eggs that have a rather pungent, earthy odor. How could I have been so doubtful?
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.
Yeah, right.....
if all the ice on the planet melted it would only raise sea level like 230 feet..
ohhh wait there was a lot more water an planet earth 4800 years ago, well ancient astronaut theorists say aliens came to planet earth and took some of the water so they could go planet hopping.. thirsty little aliens
hope they don't come back for more
