It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Ron Wyatt and his shocking discovery!

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 14 2005 @ 01:31 AM
link   
I debated about were to put this thread as it has both a biblical and ancient civilization aspect to it. This is basically the story of a man by the name of Ron Wyatt who feels he has found the final resting spot of noahs ark. Yes, I know hard to believe right? I was skeptical about it as well. Several weeks ago my father told me about watching a documentary about this man who made amazing claims as it pertains to Noahs Ark. A lot of what he told me was hard..no impossible to fathom. If this is indeed true it could very well turn a lot of issues about noahs ark and ancient civilization upside down. If your reading this you are probaly wondering what is so fantastic about this. Its three simple metals that makes this amazing.
•Aluminum
•Magnesium
•Titanium
These 3 metals were all found in and around the area that Ron Wyatt contends is the final resting spot of the famed noahs ark. Impossible you say? I said the same things. Right away several questions surfaced.

1. How did Noah have access let alone have the ability to use these 3 space age metals?
•Aluminum was discovered in 1825. It has a melting point of 675 degrees C.
•Titanium was discovered in 1791. It has a melting point of 1,668 degrees C.
•Magnesium was discovered in 1808. It has a melting point of 650 degrees C.
Noah lived several thousands of years ago, and these metals were discoveed in the 300 years. So how is it did noah come to posse such high tech metals?

2. Were these a gift from God? Or did noah and the people of his time posses metal urchery skills on par with those of today?

3. Why would Noah need metal? According to Ron Wyatt these were used in several different ways. They were used as rivets and casings to secure the wooden timbers together.

Ron Wyatt had these samples tested at two different labatorys to confirm the presence of these space age metals.
The first report stated that there was:
8.35% Aluminum
1.59% Titanium
8.35% Iron

The second report more or less mirrors that of the first.
8.08% Aluminum
8.24% Iron
1.34% Titanium
3.82% Magnesium

These two simple reports seem to prove that Mr. Wyatts findings are legit. There are several more incredible discoverys that he has found in and around the ark. Take a look around the site.
www.arkdiscovery.com...'s_ark.htm




posted on Oct, 14 2005 @ 06:12 AM
link   
LOL!

Next he'll be discovering the resting place of Harry Potter's Broomstick and prove it by revealing it was powered by an anti-gavity engine..............

The Noah story is a garbled version of an earlier Mesopotamian myth, possibly based on a severe storm during Flandrian Trangression around 5-6kya

All Wyatt has found is a well known rock formation.......



posted on Oct, 14 2005 @ 08:33 AM
link   
LOL indeed.

Before you can even start looking at this you first have all to actually believe that the story of Noah and the flood should be taken as a real historical event, rather than an allegorical tale based on previous "great flood" myths. For the sake of argument lets just say it was a real event and there was a real boat (which contained all the animals on the world yadda yadda)

The "evidence" that Wyat presents on his site is laughable. He starts by saying: This is Noah's Ark!!! and then below there is a picture of a hill in a desert. From what I can make out this seems to be about the extent of it. What evidence is there that these are the remains of a boat? If they are the remains of a boat what evidence is there that they are several thousand years old? If it is a very old boat then why should we think it is Noah's Ark?


Originally posted by Whompa1
1. How did Noah have access let alone have the ability to use these 3 space age metals?

If he ever existed that is. All we have is Wyat claiming to have discovered the Ark, hardly anyone else believing him and then claiming he found those metals in the desert. He could have just dropped them there himself. Or more likely it was left by the people who were digging around there in the 60s:



They made a visual inspection of the site and conducted no scientific studies, only some digging and dynamiting of the ark and and mistakenly concluded this site was just an "odd geological formation."

So all this digging and dynamiting would have contaminated the site? Which looks like it is a "geological formation" anyway.



These two simple reports seem to prove that Mr. Wyatts findings are legit. There are several more incredible discoverys that he has found in and around the ark. Take a look around the site.
www.arkdiscovery.com...'s_ark.htm

Maybe his discovery of some metal in the desert is legit, maybe he just planted it. Either way it doesn't mean anything as there is clearly no Ark to go with the metal and nothing has had any dating done it it whatsoever.

BTW, I especially liked the "visitors centre" which looks like a toilet with a sign stuck on it. You would think the most important historical find in the history of mankind would at least get a tea shop or something.



posted on Oct, 14 2005 @ 09:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by FatherLukeDuke

BTW, I especially liked the "visitors centre" which looks like a toilet with a sign stuck on it. You would think the most important historical find in the history of mankind would at least get a tea shop or something.


That picture almost made me laugh out loud. Especially because a little bit further up the page it said



Visitors' center built by the government to accommodate tourists further confirms its authenticity.





Well i tell you what, with those to people in charge it must be authentic



posted on Oct, 14 2005 @ 09:07 AM
link   
Hey!...........................there are signs of flood waters all over the earth! Noah and the ark could have happened! We can't discount that.



posted on Oct, 14 2005 @ 10:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Whompa1
How did Noah have access

There is no evidence that there was a flood in the first place, so why worry about that?


This is the location wyatt claims is the ark, mainly because of the shape.

Problem is, the mongols, who invaded that region, had wooden forts of similar shape, and they'd put them on hilltops.

The big bit of 'evidence' that wyatt cites is that there were metals on the site, and his claim is that they are the nails used to hold the wooden ark together. Problem is, they're not nails, they're simply naturally occuring metal concretions and nodules.


It contains 8.08 percent aluminum, 8.24 percent iron, 1.34 percent titanium, and 3.82 percent magnesium

These are all naturally occuring metals.

Here are some short refutations of wyatts bogus claims:
Noah's ark has been found
Giant anchor stones
The Turkish government has officially recognized


It seems that the biggest peice of evidence for you is that the nodules have 'space age metals'. Wyatt on the page you cite insists that they are man made. They're not. They're naturally occuring metals that occur in rocks all over the place. True enough, they are used in modern technology, but that doesn't mean that simply because they are present that they were made by men.



posted on Oct, 14 2005 @ 10:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by FibroKat
Hey!...........................there are signs of flood waters all over the earth! Noah and the ark could have happened! We can't discount that.


A worldwide flood is physically impossible. So is getting all the world's creatures on a boat. Anyway, I did say for the sake of argument that it had happened. However all Wyat can show is a hill. In a desert. With some bits of (naturally occuring) metal apparently scattered about. Wow.



posted on Oct, 14 2005 @ 10:20 AM
link   
Ron Wyatt died

Dead

this is farily old news on ATS and there is lots of post all over this site about Ron Wyatt's discoveries.

DO a search for ROn Wyatt here on ATS and you will see.



posted on Oct, 26 2005 @ 11:57 AM
link   
i've only read the top post so sorry if someone mentioned this, but just because he discovered some metals (which happen to occur naturally on some counts) how did he come to the conclusion of noah's ark? what did that have to do with anything?



posted on Oct, 26 2005 @ 06:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Longy4eva
i've only read the top post so sorry if someone mentioned this, but just because he discovered some metals (which happen to occur naturally on some counts) how did he come to the conclusion of noah's ark? what did that have to do with anything?


Its one thing for the metal to occure naturally. But when it presents itself in the form of rivets and metal plates thats something different.



posted on Oct, 26 2005 @ 06:15 PM
link   
this is true, but how do they know how old it is? i'm not trying to pick holes here sorry, im just trying to generate questions that would be asked in any discovery. and why noah's ark? they could be from another ancient civ from god knows when (no pun intended
)



posted on Oct, 26 2005 @ 06:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Longy4eva
this is true, but how do they know how old it is? i'm not trying to pick holes here sorry, im just trying to generate questions that would be asked in any discovery. and why noah's ark? they could be from another ancient civ from god knows when (no pun intended
)


Read the website it answers it all there.



posted on Oct, 26 2005 @ 06:46 PM
link   
Noah's Ark...Bah. A rip-off of the story of Gilgamesh-



posted on Oct, 26 2005 @ 07:38 PM
link   
Ron Wyatt made many discoveries, but never showed any proof of them.

The worst of all is that he claims to have discovered the Ark of the Covenant in Israel, and video taped it.

Of course the video whites out when it pans to the supposed Ark, and you cant see it, but if you can still pay $30.00 for the video if you want.

He is a hoaxer that preyed upon religious zealots to fund his trips around the world, and later survived milking his hoax videos on the web.


[edit on 26-10-2005 by ArchAngel]



posted on Oct, 26 2005 @ 07:49 PM
link   
I find this particular theory of Noah's ark particularly ridiculus from just the point of view of the picture.

Noahs arc was a giant floating box, it didn't need a bow and stern, It was a ship for survival, not for going anywhere. Just where would you go when the entire earth is covered in water???

this picture is obviously a natural landform, to try and twist it to be a boat to fit his book is a farce. It denies the bible upon which the entire theory is based



Originally posted by Nygdan

This is the location wyatt claims is the ark, mainly because of the shape.



[edit on 26-10-2005 by Netchicken]



posted on Oct, 26 2005 @ 08:40 PM
link   
You ever watched the discovery channel? Most modern "ark" searchers are looking at that spot once again as the resting area for several reasons.



posted on Oct, 26 2005 @ 11:11 PM
link   
Your point is?
Just how many are "most modern"?

Just because they are looking on Mt Ararat doesn't mean they think this bogus picture is the ark.

Don't you think if this pic WAS the ark that by now someone would have gone back and made sure?

Don't you think Turkey would be overjoyed at this instant Muslim and Christian tourist attraction? (OK maybe initially they wouldn't being secular etc).

People would come from around the world to see it, I know I would. Why havn't they found it and exploited it for themselves using their own military?

Because it isn't there....

Just look at it again, and tell me what resemblence it has to the biblical ark below?



... which was a great big floating rectangle, like a container or oil ship. Just designed to float in one place.

This is a case of the "kings new clothes" no one looks at the object without actually realising what they are being told is bunk. This is an obvious natural landform.

Here, for me, is a far more realistic senario for the Ark being on a mountain in Iran
www.noahsarksearch.com...

[edit on 26-10-2005 by Netchicken]

[edit on 26-10-2005 by Netchicken]



posted on Oct, 26 2005 @ 11:20 PM
link   
Gee thats good throw up a artists rendition and call it golden..That doesnt mean anything. No one knows exactly what it may or may not look like. By most modern I mean with in the last 5-10 years. Just because something is covered in soil doesnt mean it can be there. Ever think that maybe the ark had a pointed bow as aposed to a square end?? Nobody who is alive knows if it did or didnt. How exactly are you gonna explain metal rivets that are made up of those metals when it wasnt know how to refine them at that time? Not too mention they were tested twice. No not just soil but the actual rivets themselves. Could this be the real thing?? I dont know to be honest but in my heart it could be. Its shown more proof then any splotchy satelite photos to date. Not too mention all the very large stones scattered around the area with holes drilled thru the top that are thought to be sea anchors. Now tell me netchicken if that is the case and they really are sea anchors what the hell are they doing in an area devoid of any sort of large body of water? Netchicken do you know for 100% that thats not the ark?? Just answer the question yes or no? One other thing...The goverment keeps closing the area off to everyone. How are they gonna go in and do anything when its closed off?

[edit on 26-10-2005 by Whompa1]



posted on Oct, 26 2005 @ 11:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Whompa1
as the resting area for several reasons.

They're bad reason's tho. Wyatt was a fraud. Besides, there was no Global Flood for there to have been a Noah's Ark anyways.

[edit on 26-10-2005 by Nygdan]



posted on Oct, 26 2005 @ 11:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan

Originally posted by Whompa1
as the resting area for several reasons.

They're bad reason's tho. Wyatt was a fraud.


In who's eyes? Your's? Mine? That point is if you have nothing to back his findings against you cant very well call him a fraud. Just because you or anyone consider him a fraud does not mean that he is. Galieo and Capernicus were all considered frauds and charlatans too by anyone know claimed to know anything in their day as well. What if he was on point and it is noahs ark? And do you have proof that there was no global flood? Pretty moronic statement considering just about every major religion has a great flood story. So your saying all these reilgions are full of BS?

[edit on 26-10-2005 by Whompa1]

[edit on 26-10-2005 by Whompa1]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join