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: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 27 2005 @ 05:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Whompa1
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?

I can't see any rivets on the website, just stuff they say are rivets.



Not too mention they were tested twice. No not just soil but the actual rivets themselves. Could this be the real thing??

Real rivets? If they are rivets can you show me how old they are? Otherwise how do we know they haven't just fallen off someones Landrover?



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.

Who exactly thinks they are sea anchors? I can't see anything on the website that looks like an anchor. Where is the evidence of drilling?



Netchicken do you know for 100% that thats not the ark?? Just answer the question yes or no?

I can't speak for Netchicken, but I'm 100% sure it is a hill. The fundamental problem with this claim is that there isn't actually a boat or any remains of one, there is just a hill which, if you squint in bad light, might be shaped a bit like a boat (I can't see it myself, but I could never make out the picture in those Magic Eye type drawings either).



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?

I thought there was a visitors centre there.... Why would they put that there if it was closed off? Anyways, loads of people have already been digging around and declared it "a natural formation", as it actually says on RW's site.




posted on Oct, 27 2005 @ 05:12 AM
link   
Good points regarding the undisputable fact of deluge-inspired lore in almost every long-standing culture in the world. Notice I said 'fact' in regard to 'lore' not 'deluge.'

And the bottom line is that it's only a battle of being 'a tale ripped off from Gilgamesh' etc. when we choose to take sides that endeavor to establish some as 'right' and some as 'wrong.' So be it--that's human nature--and the extent of my soapbox contribution regarding floods...

Irrespective of whether the bible is 'true' (a relative term , at best, any way its examined)--looking at the whole Noah's ark thing as a potential treasure hunt, or whatever--based on the only Noah-inspired document we have, which is the biblical account, there is absolutely no grounds for the ark being on Mt Ararat in the first place. Mainly because the bible doesn't say 'Mt. Ararat,' it says the 'mountains of Ararat.' Which, in all likelihood, points more in the direction of what used to be (I think ? if my memory serves me) ancient Armenia--which is near modern day Iran (once Persia). Also--on even the tallest peaks in the world, fossils of sea-dwelling creatures are found. Regardless of why or how this came to be--it is well documented and not disputed by scientific observation. Yet, there are exceptions, which come by way of those mountains whose birth came by virtue of being a volcanic cinder-cone. Mt. Ararat in Turkey turns out to be one such mountain--and it makes sense, if you think about the fact that it is a lone mountain rising up from relatively non-mountainous country. And the clincher is the very high possibility that Mt. Ararat didn't even exist 6000 to 10,000 years ago!

So whether or not there was an ark, we can be reasonably sure that it did not come to rest on a mountain which wasn't even there at the time it did or did not come to rest on the mountains of Ararat.


I read a really good book (only because it was recommended-- I would never have thought to find such a book worth reading--but it was, even more than that) and the man that wrote it has a website, in which I am somewhat disappointed--for one, because I had to search Amazon for the book I read--I'm guessing that because there is no actual 'discovery' in the book it wasn't included on the website, but I, personally, kind of like the idea of mysteries left to question (whether the question be 'is it true' or 'where is it at') and the book made some very coherent and logical points about all these years so many have spent chasing their tails and running from the Turkish government on Ararat....



posted on Oct, 27 2005 @ 06:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by queenannie38
Yet, there are exceptions, which come by way of those mountains whose birth came by virtue of being a volcanic cinder-cone. Mt. Ararat in Turkey turns out to be one such mountain--and it makes sense, if you think about the fact that it is a lone mountain rising up from relatively non-mountainous country. And the clincher is the very high possibility that Mt. Ararat didn't even exist 6000 to 10,000 years ago!



Ummm... No. Sorry, but Ararat is a stratovolcano, not a cinder cone. Cinder cones erupt once and then die, leaving a small cone. Stratovolcanoes erupt repeatedly, building themselves into a huge shape. Here's a good link for Ararat, from the Volcano World website. - volcano.und.edu...

Ararat last erupted 10,000 years ago, which doesn't mean that it can't erupt again tomorrow. Just thought I'd point it out!



posted on Oct, 27 2005 @ 08:48 AM
link   
All of the info Wyatt employs in his supposed Ark discovery can also be found here along with MUCH MUCH MORE.

www.barry.warmkessel.com...



The supposed anchors are no such thing.

The hole is far too small for any rope that would support its weight, and the hole is too close to the top.

Before it would lift its own weight it would break.


There are several reasons why this site is NOT Noahs Ark.

1. It is not rectangular.

2. Its length is not six times its width. Genesis 6

3. There is no pitch covered Gopher wood at the site.

Likely it was a Mongul sentry post, or garrison.



posted on Oct, 27 2005 @ 10:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Whompa1

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?

Yes. Consider that this is also a guy who claimed to have found, underground where jesus was crucified, the Ark of the Covenant, in a chamber where there was blood flowing over it from the crucifixtion, still fresh, supposedly for 2ka. And that he never offered any evidence, but claimed to have had it, and that he was told to release it during a great moment that was comming soon, but he never bothered to release it his whole life.



That point is if you have nothing to back his findings against you cant very well call him a fraud.

He distorts data and hoodwinks people into giving him money for his own personal gain.


Galieo and Capernicus were all considered frauds and charlatans too by anyone know claimed to know anything in their day as well.

The difference is that the evidence supported what G and C were claiming.

And do you have proof that there was no global flood?

The evidence that we have indicates that there was no global flood.

Pretty moronic statement considering just about every major religion has a great flood story.

Citing the popularity of a fictional story as evidence that its true is moronic.

So your saying all these reilgions are full of BS?

You suggest that everything every religion says is true, even when they contradict one another?


queenannie38
And the clincher is the very high possibility that Mt. Ararat didn't even exist 6000 to 10,000 years ago!

What are you basing this on?

Mt. Ararat in Turkey turns out to be one such mountain--and it makes sense, if you think about the fact that it is a lone mountain rising up from relatively non-mountainous country

Turkey is extremely mountainous.



posted on Oct, 27 2005 @ 11:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by FatherLukeDuke
...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.


And they (the mods) wonder why members (especially new members) have stopped posting. With condescending comments like this, what's the point of saying anything.

If you don't think its true...that's fine. But taking a cheap shot at someone else's beliefs is totally uncalled for.



posted on Oct, 27 2005 @ 06:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by BostonBill99

Originally posted by FatherLukeDuke
...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.


And they (the mods) wonder why members (especially new members) have stopped posting. With condescending comments like this, what's the point of saying anything.

If you don't think its true...that's fine. But taking a cheap shot at someone else's beliefs is totally uncalled for.


It's a perfectly valid point, not a "cheap shot". The website claims that Turkey has made this a site of special interest, and makes quite a big deal about it, yet the crappy visitors centre would seem to indicate that they don't think it is that "special" at all.

You should perhaps be directing your anger at the fraudsters who made this whole thing up in an attempt to make money.



posted on Oct, 27 2005 @ 06:24 PM
link   
Fatherlukeduke...read the thread...

The rivets are petrafied more or less And yes there are pictures. As well as dates given from two independent labs citing ages and structural make up.

[edit on 27-10-2005 by Whompa1]



posted on Oct, 27 2005 @ 08:01 PM
link   
If The Flood didin't happen, then explain to me this...


And btw, ICR(Institute For Creation Research) used carbon dating(which evolutionists use to "prove" that the earth is 4.5 billion years old) and come to find out, the sediment near the bottom is younger than the sediment near the top. Huh.



posted on Oct, 27 2005 @ 08:01 PM
link   
Oh, one more thing. You can find sea shells there.



posted on Oct, 27 2005 @ 09:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Darkmind
Ummm... No. Sorry, but Ararat is a stratovolcano, not a cinder cone. Cinder cones erupt once and then die, leaving a small cone. Stratovolcanoes erupt repeatedly, building themselves into a huge shape. Here's a good link for Ararat, from the Volcano World website. - volcano.und.edu...

Ararat last erupted 10,000 years ago, which doesn't mean that it can't erupt again tomorrow. Just thought I'd point it out!


Thank you for clarifying--I am not qualified in any regard to geothermal knowledge--I just didn't know what else to call that volcano --being one of those people who can't just say 'volcano' when that's all they should really say!!



posted on Oct, 27 2005 @ 10:21 PM
link   
``

i'm not sure if the ats archives cover this:

there are 4 other (Mt Ararat's / resting place of the Ark of Noah)
according to Quran there is site Al Cudi or Cudi Dagi

another site in S. Turkey near Cizare
another in S. central Turkey near Harran
another in Saudi Arabia
another called Durupinar which is this earthen mound in this thread.
((this Durupinar site is some 18 miles distant from the acclaimed famous site at Mount Ararat proper, which is actually twin peak mountain(s) with the famous Ahora Gorge in between))

see: www.noahsarksearch.com...

and: if your wanting more reading, just Google-Search any of those place names in bold

or: 216.117.163.114...

~~~~~~~~~Folktale has it that a vineyard Noah planted still thrives,
its at the Turkey/Armenia Mt Ararat, the one with the AhoraGorge

[edit on 27-10-2005 by St Udio]



posted on Oct, 28 2005 @ 03:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Whompa1
The rivets are petrafied more or less And yes there are pictures. As well as dates given from two independent labs citing ages and structural make up.

[edit on 27-10-2005 by Whompa1]


I'm sorry, but I've had a good look at the site and can't see anything that looks like a rivet, or anything else manmade. They all just look like lumps of rock that contain quite small amounts of metal (and metals that occur naturally in rocks)

I also can't see anything stating the age of these "finds" - where is that and what age is given?



posted on Oct, 28 2005 @ 08:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Prodicaliforniason
If The Flood didin't happen, then explain to me this...


Not to be a smart alec, but that's a painting. And I don't see that a painting proves or disproves anything.


And btw, ICR(Institute For Creation Research) used carbon dating(which evolutionists use to "prove" that the earth is 4.5 billion years old) and come to find out, the sediment near the bottom is younger than the sediment near the top. Huh.

Are you sure they're telling the truth??

You see, you can't use carbon dating on rocks.
www.c14dating.com...

If they said they carbon dated the rocks, they're lying to you.

Second, carbon dating doesn't work for things older than 50,000 years... so evolutionists never "dated" the earth with it. They date only things that died between 50,000 years ago and 1,000 years ago by carbon dating. Other methods are used for older material.

If the site says scientists date dinosaurs and other fossils with carbon dating, then it's lying to you.

Third, evolution deals only with "how life changed from one form to another more complex form." It doesn't deal with "where did that rock come from and how old is it."

If the site is telling you that evolutionists date the age of the earth, the site is lying to you.

[edit on 28-10-2005 by Byrd]



posted on Oct, 28 2005 @ 10:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Prodicaliforniason
If The Flood didin't happen, then explain to me this.

It bears no evidence of having been created by a flood. The strata of which it is made up of indicate the passage of a great amount of time, and the fact that there's a river at the bottom of it shows that the river. This in fact is uniformitarianism in action, small pressures (the eroding effect of a river), over great spans of time, can have great actions. There is no need to suppose that there was some sort of flood to make the grand canyon, let alone the great flood of the bible.


And btw, ICR(Institute For Creation Research) used carbon dating

Odd, since they constantly harp on radio-carbon dating as being useless. Guess its not useless to them when it supports their agenda.

the sediment near the bottom is younger than the sediment near the top. Huh.

You cannot use Carbon dating to date sediments.

You can find sea shells there

Yes, fossilized seashells. And you also find lots of other fossils that indicate it was laid out over time and that there was no flood.

[edit on 28-10-2005 by Nygdan]



posted on Oct, 28 2005 @ 09:20 PM
link   
The point ICR was making was that if in fact carbon dating was acurate then explain how the "materials" they found were older near the top(I say materials because I was about 10-12 when I heard about this-my memory on what type of material they dated isn't all that great). But if that was too crazy to believe then carbon dating doesn't work. Either way it "works to their advantage". So having sea shells in the middle of the desert doesn't make you think for a second? You ask if I believe ICR. I believe the bible. Who do you believe? An evolutionist who thinks that nothing plus nothing equals something. You mean that only some monkeys evolved into humans, but what about the ones at the zoo? You know your long lost cousin.

The bible says that the dead in sin cannot understand God or His Word until He opens their eyes through the Holy Spirt. You will never KNOW until you've made the choice. As long as we say that evolution is the answer, or some aliens seeded us here, or anything else satan wins you over. Remember his biggest lie is that he doesn't exhist in the first place.



posted on Oct, 29 2005 @ 12:41 AM
link   
Fatherlukeduke...I don't know how you cannot see anything there. Look at the areas circled in red. That is defiantly not a natural rock formation.






posted on Oct, 29 2005 @ 01:34 PM
link   
Well they don't look anything like rivets to me, and look completely natural, but everyone will have their own interpretation.

Still, the underling problem is that there is no ark, or remains of one, at the site. So I would say that the (not dated) "rivets" aren't really very relevant without a bloody great boat to go with them.



posted on Oct, 29 2005 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Prodicaliforniason
The point ICR was making was that if in fact carbon dating was acurate then explain how the "materials" they found were older near the top(


The older layers are not on top. Take a look at the geologic cross-section map of the Grand Canyon -- the third column gives the age of the rocks. Notice, please, that the oldest are not on top and in fact the youngest layers are on top:
www.kaibab.org...

Furthermore, the rocks aren't and can't be carbon dated because they were never alive.

That's two lies you've been told, I'm afraid.



So having sea shells in the middle of the desert doesn't make you think for a second?

Real sea shells or sea shell fossils? If we're talking sea shells (unfossilized) in the Mojave, we already know that this area was part of the ocean until fairly recently (less than 3,000 years old) and real sea shells could indeed be there.

If fossils, then it fits what we say: that the area was once part of a great sea and the organisms fossilized over a long period of time. As the climate changed and land rose, seas retreated and uncovered the buried fossils. Erosion causes sand, and it is not surprising to find these fossils in deserts.


You ask if I believe ICR. I believe the bible.

...which says nothing about dating methods, sedimentation, rock formation, or breeding new types of animals from other animals (it does, however, say that if you put sheep in a pen and have partly peeled willow twigs there, the sheep will produce spotted offspring and then if you move them into a different pen these same sheep will have offspring of one color. This has never been found to be true, by the way.)



posted on Oct, 29 2005 @ 02:54 PM
link   
For those of you interested in the Grand Canyon geology argument, here is an excellent web resource on it. The text is easy to understand, the author uses his own photos, and has made a nice "book" as a resource available to us all:
www.edu-source.com...




top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join