Noah and the Ark - Fact or Fiction?

[colliric]

Excuse me, but the burden of proof is on those that claim it is something other than a rock formation because rocks are found on mountains on a fairly regular basis but old, wooden arks aren’t. Any claim that it is not a rock formation requires that those that make the claim confirm scientifically that it is not rock.Ararat is a volcano that is pretty heavily glaciated. That situation leads to unusual shapes. Regardless, the object in the photo doesn’t even look like a boat or wood. There is no significance to that. There used to be a formation in Maine here in the US that looked just like a human face. It was called, I believe, “The Old Man of the Mountain”. http://www.nhpr.org/images/stories/last_oldman_02.jpg

Would you say that there really was a man in there? Sorry, but there wasn’t. It was just a rock formation, just like the object in those photos from Ararat.

Peace

Tim

No, but that rock dude didn’t draw the attention of the CIA twice… and that was before anyone got a look at the thing from above.

Comon Tim, you have to admit that it is the reason why and at least explains how many people all claim to have seen the Ark on top of the mountain and most of them say they saw it or found something from it in the immediate vicinity of this “Anomoly”… even if it is just a boat like rock formation…

give me that at least…

 

[mahleh]

If you ever have insomnia watch the discovery channel around 3 in the morning. I have found many facinating programs on the ark, including, but not limited to, pictures of the monks on the ark, a piece of petrifyied wood from near the site of the ark, various religous icons that have been found by the nomadic people who live and work on the mountain that they claim have been found when the snow melts. Sattelite pictures also show that the object appears to be hollow using whatever technology they have going. The hubble telescope when first launched, took pictures of the ark. Also check out the protestant channels at that time, as they try to disprove the faith, only they fail very badly.

 

[Pixie_Dust]

I saw your posts. That is a rock formation, not a boat.

Peace

Tim

You cannot definitively say that it’s a rock formation any more than someone else can say that it’s Noah’s ark unless they actually get to go see it up close and personal. You and I can insist until our fingers bleed that it’s a rock…no, it’s the ark…no, it’s a rock…no, it’s the ark…but neither one of us has any proof since we’ve never been there. For me, what I see persuades me that it’s not a rock. For you, what you see persuades you that it is. Somebody is wrong.

 

[Orogeny]

Not to mention the anomaly is less than a few hundred meters from where Fernand Navarra famously found six peices of 5,000 year old fossilized wood in 1955(Without even knowing how close he was to the anomoly, which was then classified information)…

I think you are mistaken that the wood he provided was petrified. It wasn’t. In fact, it wasn’t 5,000 years old, either.
talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH504_2.html

How did he not know he was that close to the “anomaly” if it is so obvious?

Peace

Tim

 

[colliric]

E Any claim that it is not a rock formation requires that those that make the claim confirm scientifically that it is not rock

They are in the very expensive process of doing that, this photo only came to light last year remember. There are going to be more sattellite photos taken soon which will determine what the structure is made of, since sadly, the area is actually largely unacessable by foot. Sattellite photography techniques will however be adequate to find out if it’s rock or something else.

Getting the CIA to release all of it’s information will also help us get to the bottom of this, they looked at the site not once(the first time was that accidental photograph which set off alarm bells, although the agency was called a diffrent name back then) but twice(they returned in '72, but still keep the details of that visit confidential) before telling everyone in 1995 thanks to the freedom of information act which forced them to release the '47 pictures…

 

[Orogeny]

No, but that rock dude didn’t draw the attention of the CIA twice… and that was before anyone got a look at the thing from above.

Irrelevant. Assuming the CIA was interested in the “anomaly”, perhaps that is because they couldn’t physically go there to investigate. Also, perhaps they had other reasons for their interest. There is a reason they were looking in that area to begin with.

Comon Tim, you have to admit that it is the reason why and at least explains how many people all claim to have seen the Ark on top of the mountain and most of them say they saw it or found something from it in the immediate vicinity of this “Anomoly”… even if it is just a boat like rock formation…

give me that at least…

Nope. They saw a boat because they want to find Noah’s ark. I guarantee you that you can find strange shaped rock formations in any mountain range in the world, especially if you are using satellite imaging to do your search. So much depends on light angle and atmospheric conditions that it is easy to see shapes that don’t even really exist. The famous “Man on Mars” face is a perfect example of that.

I bet that if that “anomaly” were seen anywhere else in the world no one would have paid on second of attention to it. That would indicate that it is a preexisting belief that leads to the conclusion that some have reached.

Peace

Tim

 

[colliric]

I think you are mistaken that the wood he provided was petrified. It wasn’t. In fact, it wasn’t 5,000 years old, either.
talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH504_2.html

How did he not know he was that close to the “anomaly” if it is so obvious?

Peace

Tim

The CIA kept it under wraps until 1995… No one knew about it except your government which discovered it in 1947, kept it hidden, returned to check it out again in 1972, and continued to keep it hidden until 1995.

I wonder why they kept it hidden for so long?

Conspiracy nuts went crazy over this one for years, until the CIA confirmed it in 1995.

 

[mahleh]

Do you believe in the evidence found of Soddom and Gam.? What about the famous pillar of salt, called by the Bedouins “Lot’s Wife”? Hey, they found the Dead Sea Scrolls. Take a leap, why not? What do you have to loose?

 

[Orogeny]

You cannot definitively say that it’s a rock formation any more than someone else can say that it’s Noah’s ark unless they actually get to go see it up close and personal.

I could call it an outcropping of marshmallow and make the same statement. Would the burden of proof be on me or you to support that claim?

I stand by what I previously posted - it is a rock formation and the burden if proof is on those that claim it to be something else.

You and I can insist until our fingers bleed that it’s a rock…no, it’s the ark…no, it’s a rock…no, it’s the ark…but neither one of us has any proof since we’ve never been there. For me, what I see persuades me that it’s not a rock. For you, what you see persuades you that it is. Somebody is wrong.

Well, that is true. I say that it is a rock formation. A rock formation on a mountain. As I look at the photograph as a geologist, I am persuaded that the object in the photos a) looks like a rock formation, b) is where one would expect to find a rock formation, c) is an an area with countless rock formations, and d) doesn’t look like a boat. I know I am making a stretch in your mind when I say this, but it is a rock formation.

Now, you make your case.

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

The CIA kept it under wraps until 1995… No one knew about it except your government which discovered it in 1947, kept it hidden, returned to check it out again in 1972, and continued to keep it hidden until 1995.

I wonder why they kept it hidden for so long?

Conspiracy nuts went crazy over this one for years, until the CIA confirmed it in 1995.

Once again, so what? There are probably lots of things that the CIA has kept under wraps. They are an intelligence agency, you know. Secrets are their business.

Peace

Tim

 

[colliric]

Do you believe in the evidence found of Soddom and Gam.? What about the famous pillar of salt, called by the Bedouins “Lot’s Wife”? Hey, they found the Dead Sea Scrolls. Take a leap, why not? What do you have to loose?

Hey when the CIA is interested twice in something, it’s not to be gauked at…

They haven’t even release anything from their second visit to the mountain…

and only allowed 6 frames to be released from the first time they “accidently” photographed it…

And one thing I just found out, they conducted a followup visit immediatly after getting a look at that first photo in 1949. they visited it twice that year… then decided to go back and look again in 1972. They are the only ones who actually have close up detailed photos of the structure or rock formation.

The CIA doesn’t go back for a second look at something unless it was very very interesting the first time around…

 

[Orogeny]

Do you believe in the evidence found of Soddom and Gam.? What about the famous pillar of salt, called by the Bedouins “Lot’s Wife”? Hey, they found the Dead Sea Scrolls. Take a leap, why not? What do you have to loose?

No, I believe in God, not evidence or science. I accept the evidence when it is compelling and has passed scrutiny. I don’t know much about the findings of the towns of Sodom or Gomorrah, but from what I understand the finds were pretty conclusive. As far as the salt pillars, no I don’t think that any of the salt pillars in the area are the earthly remains of Lot’s wife.

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

Hey when the CIA is interested twice in something, it’s not to be gauked at…

They haven’t even release anything from their second visit to the mountain…

and only allowed 6 frames to be released from the first time they “accidently” photographed it…

And one thing I just found out, they conducted a followup visit immediatly after getting a look at that first photo in 1949. they visited it twice that year… then decided to go back and look again in 1972. They are the only ones who actually have close up detailed photos of the structure or rock formation.

The CIA doesn’t go back for a second look at something unless it was very very interesting the first time around…

Why is it that they were in the area to begin with? Do you really think they were looking for Noah’s ark? Or were they looking for something else? Think about where that area is and think about what the CIA does. Perhaps that had something to do with them going back multiple times.

Peace

Tim

 

[colliric]

No, I believe in God, not evidence or science. I accept the evidence when it is compelling and has passed scrutiny. I don’t know much about the findings of the towns of Sodom or Gomorrah, but from what I understand the finds were pretty conclusive. As far as the salt pillars, no I don’t think that any of the salt pillars in the area are the earthly remains of Lot’s wife.

Peace

Tim

I do too, and I believe the evidence in favor of Noah’s Ark resting on Mt Ararat at one time, is conclusive. Eyewitness historical accounts of people who went specifically to that vicinity on hte mountain both modern and Ancient(Josephus), satellite and other photo’s of weird “formations” that the CIA successfully kept quiet for 48 years, people possibly finding artifacts from it… I think it’s all there… complete with cool Government “x-files style” Conspiracy to go with it too, heck that existed first before the Photos came and confirmed it…

I think there are still remains up there on the mountain, and I also believe the government that runs your country probably already knows what’s really on that mountain… or at least the CIA certainly does(Al Gore probably does too, he was the one who unveiled those pictures in '95.) and still want to keep it largely secret or at least as secret as possible until some member of the public decides to find out anyway. And funny enough this time we all know they’ve been there and had a look, and kept it secret… That’s no secret, they gave us some crumbs from 1947 to chew on and also confirmed they went again in 1972!

 

[Orogeny]

I do too, and I believe the evidence in favor of Noah’s Ark resting on Mt Ararat at one time, is conclusive.

Conclusive, huh? No doubt about it?

You obviously are into conspiracy theories, so I doubt that you would accept any evidence that opposes your view, just like those who still insist that JFK was not killed by Oswald and the 9/11 attacks were really an Israeli and/or US government conspiracy.

I have an open mind when it comes to scientific evidence. There is no evidence that the “anomaly” on Ararat is a boat. There is no evidence of a flood great enough to get a boat up on a mountain like Ararat. There is no evidence that all life on earth hit a bottleneck about 5,000 years ago. None. If you insist that the rock formation on Ararat is a boat, you will then need to explain how it got there and why there is no evidence to explain it.

Peace

Tim

 

[colliric]

Why is it that they were in the area to begin with? Do you really think they were looking for Noah’s ark? Or were they looking for something else? Think about where that area is and think about what the CIA does. Perhaps that had something to do with them going back multiple times.

Peace

Tim

The first time they went and took the first photo by accident, they were on a spy mission spying on Russia and turned the camera on early and got a picture of Mt Ararat and something which clearly drew their attention and which required an immediate documentation…

They immediatly organised to return and take more photos from spy planes not of russia’s movements, but specifically on the mountain because they saw something very interesting on it. That is not “quiet” information, they released 6 photos specifically of the mountain that they took on that mission of documenting the “Ararat Anomoly” and figuring out what it was… keep in mind they never even saw that Sattellite photo and still thought “**** we could be on to something huge here, it looks like a giant boat and it’s on Mt Ararat 15,000ft in the air”.

34 years later they saw need to return and have another classified look at the mountain specifically with then modern technology. Apparently what they thought was the same thing… “**** it’s still interesting”. In fact this was about the time that Conspericy theorists started going ape when rumor spread around the CIA itself that they’d discovered something huge. And the contents of this visit remain classified and will remain so for many years to come.

They only gave the public 6 frames of the 1947 classified material in 1995 and only because an individual lobbied hard to get them released under the new Freedom of information act.

 

[colliric]

Conclusive, huh? No doubt about it?

You obviously are into conspiracy theories, so I doubt that you would accept any evidence that opposes your view, just like those who still insist that JFK was not killed by Oswald and the 9/11 attacks were really an Israeli and/or US government conspiracy.

I have an open mind when it comes to scientific evidence. There is no evidence that the “anomaly” on Ararat is a boat. There is no evidence of a flood great enough to get a boat up on a mountain like Ararat. There is no evidence that all life on earth hit a bottleneck about 5,000 years ago. None. If you insist that the rock formation on Ararat is a boat, you will then need to explain how it got there and why there is no evidence to explain it.

Peace

Tim

If they find out it’s a boat up there, Which I honestly believe from the avalible evidence they will… there’s no need for an explanation… just turn to Genesis… There’s your explanation.

I would not have been of this opinion last year, I would have shared your opinion, until I saw that Photo and did a little reseach on the area and specific topic. If it was just that Satellitte photo I would probally have been more skeptical like yourself, but the fact is this site was actually discovered in 1947, the CIA knows something(they’ve got much more photos of this site than anyone else does… probally photos that would shake your own faith in it being a rock formation), everyone knows they did it this time because they’ve admitted it in 1995 when they revealed the tip of the iceberg…

This site is the traditional site, this site has had many eyewitnesses claim they actually went and saw it, people have claimed to have taken artifacts from the location(without even knowing where they were exactly, not hundreds of meters from “The Ararat Anomoly”.)… what more do you want? That Satellite photo is close to being the icing on the cake!

 

[Orogeny]

If they find out it’s a boat up there, Which I honestly believe from the avalible evidence they will… there’s no need for an explanation… just turn to Genesis… There’s your explanation.

Which just proves my point that the interpretation of this rock formation is based on a pre-conceived notion that the ark is on that mountain, not that the photos show anything that even looks like a boat. The fact of the matter is is if you do find a boat there and there is no clues as to why it is there or how it got there, you have a problem.

I would not have been of this opinion last year, I would have shared your opinion, until I saw that Photo and did a little reseach on the area and specific topic.

What research were you able to do? Did you go to Ararat or did you go to conspiracy websites?

If it was just that Satellitte photo I would probally have been more skeptical like yourself, but the fact is this site was actually discovered in 1947, the CIA knows something(they’ve got much more photos of this site than anyone else does… probally photos that would shake your own faith in it being a rock formation), everyone knows they did it this time because they’ve admitted it in 1995 when they revealed the tip of the iceberg…

How do you know what the CIA has if they haven’t released it? How do you know that you have been told the true reason for the overflights?

This site is the traditional site, this site has had many eyewitnesses claim they actually went and saw it, people have claimed to have taken artifacts from the location(without even knowing where they were exactly, not hundreds of meters from “The Ararat Anomoly”.)…

Then how do they know they were at the site?

what more do you want? That Satellite photo is close to being the icing on the cake!

I want physical evidence. I want legitimate scientists to examine the site and tell me that it is a boat before I accept that it is. Otherwise, your eyewitnesses and your satellite photos are not even close to convincing me that the object in the photo is not a natural rock formation.

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

The first time they went and took the first photo by accident, they were on a spy mission spying on Russia and turned the camera on early and got a picture of Mt Ararat and something which clearly drew their attention and which required an immediate documentation…

How do you know it was an accident? They told you? And you believe them?

They immediatly organised to return and take more photos from spy planes not of russia’s movements, but specifically on the mountain because they saw something very interesting on it. That is not “quiet” information, they released 6 photos specifically of the mountain that they took on that mission of documenting the “Ararat Anomoly” and figuring out what it was… keep in mind they never even saw that Sattellite photo and still thought “**** we could be on to something huge here, it looks like a giant boat and it’s on Mt Ararat 15,000ft in the air”.

34 years later they saw need to return and have another classified look at the mountain specifically with then modern technology. Apparently what they thought was the same thing… “**** it’s still interesting”. In fact this was about the time that Conspericy theorists started going ape when rumor spread around the CIA itself that they’d discovered something huge. And the contents of this visit remain classified and will remain so for many years to come.

They only gave the public 6 frames of the 1947 classified material in 1995 and only because an individual lobbied hard to get them released under the new Freedom of information act.

That sounds like a great cover story to me. “We were just looking for Noah’s ark, we weren’t really spying on you! Yeah, that’s the ticket!”

Peace

Tim

 

[runandsew]

There is no evidence supporting a global flood. No geology, no archeology. Had the flood been a real event, there would be an enormous amount of evidence that would be impossible to not see. But there is none.

The story of the flood is symbolic.

Peace

Tim

Or is it?

You say that there is not evidence supporting a global flood, but there is evidence for **major **local floods, and by major I mean major.
Here in the Pacific northwest, at the end of the ice age, an ice dam formed and created lake Missoula, which was the largest body of fresh water ever. Several times this ice dam broke and flooded from Montana through eastern Washington into Oregon.
It is what created the Columbia gorge, one of the names the floods go by is the Missoula flood. They say it would have been a wall of water 1,000 feet deep, and when it all settled in the Willamette Valley here in Oregon, it filled the valley to about 600 feet. This happened several times. Scientists say this happened around 15,000 years ago, which would have been around the time that the native Americans were first arriving into America, it is possible that they could have passed the stories back to the Asia Continent.
I have also heard the same thing happened around the Black sea, but I have not been able to find much information on that flood though.

So though this wasn’t a global flood, it does show that very massive floods have occurred on earth, and it is my opinion that it is these floods are the ones that the bible is talking about, but again that is just my uninformed opinion.