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.
For years photo interpreters told us the Ark was buried in deep ice.
"Photo interpreters." That's like looking at a Rorschach inkblot and declaring what you see, isn't it?
Oh yes, this photo definitely shows Noah's Ark. And that one over there, there's no question that it proves the existence of pyramids on Mars. And wait a minute...I know it's around here somewhere...I've got a photo showing a flotilla of UFOs directly over midtown Manhattan. (How dare you insinuate those are only clouds!)
I am currently taking bets as to how many pages this "ark" thread will go.
Side-bets include how long will it take before lengthy and repetative explanations of Ica Stones, Cambodian relief sculptures, El Toro figurines,the "successful" expeditions (especially the Chinese one) and GPS usage come into play.
For years photo interpreters told us the Ark was buried in deep ice.
Photo interpreters also told us that Iraq had WMDs, and due to this we knew exactly where they were, yet 7 years and 100's of thousands of troops searching for them have turned up none.
That's the problem with "interpreting", you see what you want, not the reality of what is there, or in these cases, not there.
You always seem quite interested in providing all sorts of other purely speculative info. You are, of course, just hiding your head in the sand and avoiding my obviously logical questions.
Can I coax just one simple one out of you, Tom?
√ Where's the detailed scientific report they promised 2 or 3 years ago? Where's the link to that one, and it's comprehensive technical bibliography and peer-review by, say the American Journal of Archeology?
Simple enough question, don't you think? Else, this is all indefensiblecrap. As I assert.
Meantime, the clock ticks on after their already-missed June PR Conference. We'll see if they 1) even have one in July, and 2) if they video it and provide a link, as well as the full technical and fiscal details of their next expedition.
BTW, I e-mail them weekly now asking for such details. So far, no answer. Meantime I got an answer within 3 days from BP on my engineering suggestions; they even used one of them! Imagine that, huh? With all they have to deal with, they were still able to answer.
Theme Parks have different criteria I suppose....
.
1. Phantasy artwork? rifleman are you for real? They show a simple diagram where they have located rooms in the structure. You try to make the simple complicated, when the simple shows us the reality of what they have already uncovered. This is not phantasy artwork, it is a simple example of the placement of the rooms. Now I believe you don't want to believe any of this, so you use words like phantasy artwork. Which is really unfounded speculation on your part. And now your accusing the group who actually went there, and measured everything out, as being guilty of unfounded speculation? LOL I believe unfound speculation would come from someone who has never been to the site, yet is confident to make statements that are not based on anthing outside of their own personal opinion.
2. Wheres the detailed scientific report they promised 2 or 3 years ago? rifleman, they are just getting scientist to view their discovery this year. They just announced that they found the Ark on April 25, 2010. So what are you talking about? They are preparing to go up there again. Yet you seem not to notice that. More denials on your part rifleman?
3. BP has billions of dollars to work with rifleman, this is a small Christian group. So naturally they will not have hundreds on staff to respond to the thousands of questions coming in. Common sense would tell you that much. BP is doing all it can to keep the public calm.
Photo interpreters also told us that Iraq had WMDs, and due to this we knew exactly where they were, yet 7 years and 100's of thousands of troops searching for them have turned up none.
That's the problem with "interpreting", you see what you want, not the reality of what is there, or in these cases, not there.
Tens of thousands died when Iraq used gas which was a weapon of mass destruction. Most of those weapons were sent to Syria just before the war broke out. They did have the weapons, they were historically used. And they were moved.
And the photo interpreter that reported the large manmade object on Mt. Ararat did not believe in Noahs Ark. So he had no reason to report it was the Ark. Yet he did report seeing a large manmade object that was broken in two. And I believe what has now been uncovered, is part of what the photo interpreter reported. So now we have his account, and pictures of the object up close from the six members of the NAMI, and we have your denials. And I do believe the reports that came from the photo interpreter, and the six members of the NAMI over you personal and unfounded opinion. Boots on the ground are far more convincing, than someones personal bias opinion from an armchair.
LOL I believe unfound speculation would come from someone who has never been to the site, yet is confident to make statements that are not based on anthing outside of their own personal opinion.
You mean like you?? Damn that made me laugh!! LOL indeed old sport.
You mean like you?? Damn that made me laugh!! LOL indeed old sport.
My belief is based on the accounts of numerous people who have actually been to the site, took video, and pictures. And confirmed the accounts of other numerous people who were there in the past. Boots on the ground, not personal bias opinions from armchairs. Accounts from people, who were actually there and saw the Ark with their own eyes. Laugh all you want, but the evidence is on my side and not yours.
@Rifleman: Your posts are difficult to parse and impossible to quote because you post your responses inside the quotes. How about separating them with the quote button so the readers can more easily know which are your ideas?
Sorry. I do the best I can, and spend wayyy tooooo much time on my posts as it is. I always do change the font and color though, so you should never have a problem deciphering which are mine.
Hey; I gotta sleep sometime, huh? But anyhow, thanks for the constructive input. I'll consider it all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Campbell34
1. Phantasy artwork? rifleman are you for real? They show a simple diagram where they have located rooms in the structure.
I disagree, Tom. They have not yet located "rooms", only melt holes in the ice, by their own statements. The problem is that you then insist these are proof of a find, when they are, again, only artwork. They are not photos, there's no accurate surveys, with none of the usual information associated with a detailed site evaluation. You did read that link I provided about In Search of Faux Arks, did you not?
[PS: Charles22: see what I've done here?]
You try to make the simple complicated, when the simple shows us the reality of what they have already uncovered.
No, you try to make the speculative factual. GORE™
This is not phantasy artwork, it is a simple example of the placement of the rooms.
Speculated. No rooms have been established yet. if they have, they'd be in the fantasy summary report, complete with the irrefutable evidence that there are 1) separated rooms, and that they are, absolutely 2) in a boat.
Are you saying, absolutely, that this is all part of a boat, Tom?And that it is, 99.9% sure, The Ark? "Wow" is all I or any sane logical observer would conclude!
Now I believe you don't want to believe any of this, so you use words like phantasy artwork. Which is really unfounded speculation on your part.
Funny. "on my part", huh. Well, as I keep saying, I suspect we'll all see soon enough, right?
After all, as has been proven time after time, The literal Ark per se is an impossibility on so many levels.
And now your accusing the group who actually went there, and measured everything out, as being guilty of unfounded speculation? LOL I believe unfound speculation would come from someone who has never been to the site, yet is confident to make statements that are not based on anthing outside of their own personal opinion.
Or on the total lack of the promised scientific report. it wasn't me who promised it, Tom. It was them, but so far, it's a no-show. Right? So how, exactly, do you come to any conclusions? That's what good scientific research is all about! Dropping the speculation, the hypothesizing, and providing good solid documented and revisitable evidence for the skeptical world to review. They have provided NOTHING, but in turn want more money!
Next: Your line is indeed a classic example of shooting yourself in your own foot! See Rafi's great perspective, below. Right on, Rafius!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rafius
You mean like you?? Damn that made me laugh!! LOL indeed old sport.
2. Wheres the detailed scientific report they promised 2 or 3 years ago? rifleman, they are just getting scientist to view their discovery this year. They just announced that they found the Ark on April 25, 2010.
Yep, but based soley on the fuzzy results of their sole original trip. They've just GORE™'d themselves, in fact, in order to drum up some more money.
So what are you talking about? They are preparing to go up there again. Yet you seem not to notice that. More denials on your part rifleman?
Nope. I know they hope to go. But will it be credible? Will anyone with true proven and secular research credentials either be allowed to participate, or want to lend their name to such a wild goose chase? I seriously doubt it.
At your very own suggestion and challenge, I asked for information and offered my services. While you may not want to believe it, I'm pretty well qualified.
But no way. No standard documentation is available. To anyone! Now, who exactly is going to lay out more than, say, a stunning $5 or $10 donation if NAMI will not provide even the bare-bones basics of a prospectus? Is that how you'd run this, Tom?
"No information, sorry, but please send lots of money. We need it!"
3. BP has billions of dollars to work with rifleman, this is a small Christian group. So naturally they will not have hundreds on staff to respond to the thousands of questions coming in. Common sense would tell you that much. BP is doing all it can to keep the public calm.
But BP is not asking for money, Tom. They have the humility to clearly state that they need help and are open to valid, logical engineering suggestions.
This tribe of loons is simply asking for free money, and their marketing sucks!
As I've clearly said in my OP, we'll see how it all runs it's course. If it's at all like their last effort and lack of documentation, where after 3 or 4 years they only drew up some unsupportable artwork, then this will retain it's already stunning credibility.
(Tom, in credible science,"unsupportable artwork" does not mean it's not potentially accurate, it just means they failed to provide the necessary backup, measurements, photos and peer review. Absent those key elements, it's all just their word and conclusions against common sense. In this regard, they loose!)
Meantime, you have proven that you are completely prepared to believe all of it absent anysuch valid supporting documentation. That would be your loss and failing, Tom, not mine.
Sorry. I do the best I can, and spend wayyy tooooo much time on my posts as it is. I always do change the font and color though, so you should never have a problem deciphering which are mine.
Hey; I gotta sleep sometime, huh? But anyhow, thanks for the constructive input. I'll consider it all.
But BP is not asking for money, Tom. They have the humility to clearly state that they need help and are open to valid, logical engineering suggestions.
This tribe of loons is simply asking for free money, and their marketing sucks!
As I've clearly said in my OP, we'll see how it all runs it's course. If it's at all like their last effort and lack of documentation, where after 3 or 4 years they only drew up some unsupportable artwork, then this will retain it's already stunning credibility.
(Tom, in credible science,"unsupportable artwork" does not mean it's not potentially accurate, it just means they failed to provide the necessary backup, measurements, photos and peer review. Absent those key elements, it's all just their word and conclusions against common sense. In this regard, they loose!)
Meantime, you have proven that you are completely prepared to believe all of it absent anysuch valid supporting documentation. That would be your loss and failing, Tom, not mine.
You ask me how do I draw a scientific conclusion without a scientific report? Well, you did this with the Ica burial stones, the El Toro Figurines, and the Delk Track. And there will be no credible science documentation of such, because your scientist ignore that kind of evidence.
And as I have pointed out to you, their discovery came to us in 2010. They did not fail to do anything. Yet you would have us believe this is the case. The information that will come to us in the future will give us far more details than we now have. Their first venture was just the beginning.
And I am prepared to believe all of it, because I believe what I saw in their video, and I believe in their basic honesty. BP on the other hand was not even honest enought to tell us how much oil was leaking into the gulf. And BP does not have to ask for money, because they became rich by gouging their customers for years. To try and compare this small Christian group to BP oil, is total nonsense.
You ask me how do I draw a scientific conclusion without a scientific report? Well, you did this with the Ica burial stones, the El Toro Figurines, and the Delk Track. And there will be no credible science documentation of such, because your scientist ignore that kind of evidence.
And as I have pointed out to you, their discovery came to us in 2010. They did not fail to do anything. Yet you would have us believe this is the case. The information that will come to us in the future will give us far more details than we now have. Their first venture was just the beginning.
And I am prepared to believe all of it, because I believe what I saw in their video, and I believe in their basic honesty. BP on the other hand was not even honest enought to tell us how much oil was leaking into the gulf. And BP does not have to ask for money, because they became rich by gouging their customers for years. To try and compare this small Christian group to BP oil, is total nonsense.
We are all aware that you are falling over yourself to believe this confirmation of your deeply held religious Bible- literalist beliefs. Which it doesn't even if there is wood up there.
However, I really do hope that there is a proper investigation, not just this Jesus - tomb stuff.
And the Delk tracks?
"Although genuine dinosaur tracks are abundant in Texas, claims of human tracks have not withstood close scientific scrutiny, and in recent years have been largely abandoned even by most creationists. Alleged Paluxy "man tracks" involve a variety of spurious phenomena, including metatarsal dinosaur tracks, erosional features, indistinct markings of unknown origin, and a few loose carvings."
The Ica stones (the ones showing dinosaurs and humans) are admittedly faked and you have only ever explained that away (Oh he had to say that to avoid going to jail)
The Toro figurines doubtfully have a flouride - dating unconfirmed. Dead silence. C 14 is no good for ceramics and the divergent dating suggests a lot of organic bits from different sites submitted for corroberation.
The excavation is anecdotal. I gather that Hapgood, who was no skeptic, changed his mind about the genuine-ness of those objects. The author of Perry Mason was a good writer and probably a good lawyer, too, but he just took the anecdotes on trust and to cite his opinion (as you have) is argument from (irrelevant) authority.
The bottom line is that no organic dinosaur remains have been found in a time - context with humans.
No dinosaur stones or ceramics have been found in a properly documented scientific excavation. Just in these singular locations, whereas pottery without dinosaurs is found all over Peru.
This doesn't add up to anything much more than you red sea markers, East gate prophecy or undersea cities.
I'm really only looking in to see what's coming out of this.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 06-23-2010 at 05:21 AM..
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.
