Dont put too much stock in CNN


Lies, Weather & sports friend

what is the expression? this topic has been hammered in the ground?
Anyway, NOahs ark, if it exist in the form most people think it exist in..
a) is rotten and gone
b) is located elsewhere (you can even put in another dimension for those who believe the ark of the covenant is in another dimension
c) a story based upon a fact, but not fact in itself. (maybe Noah collected a dna database of a lot of animals, etc., put it in the ark, or some lab, etc.)

the point is, who knows...but this thing with arat, I doubt is going to get us any closer.
Ive seen pics up close, and it isnt anything to right home about, a little creative imagination and you can say you see the form of a sub...(whatever)

good to see your excitment about this though...I hope you find your answer

Gods peace

dalen

Am I the only person alive that thinks the circled area is showing nothing more than a huge chunk of rock???

I'm all for the religious crowd finding an ark, a spear, a shroud, a cup or whatever the flavor of the week might be at the time. What I don't like is everyone being dragged into the mix.

Every time satellites passes over mount Ararat and a smudge appears in the lens vision the religious seekers of the Ark claim that Noah's Ark has been discovered.

The truth is that the only way that many of the Noah arks seekers can keep collecting donations for their cause is keeping the believers believing that Ararat is the place where the Ark is.

Who knows perhaps they have been wasting their time, money and effort in the wrong mountain.

Or perhaps is all about getting the money to keep financing a dream.

i haven't seen this photo before. it was new to me. the other photo was a total bust...............but if you read the entire article you will see a bit more information than what i posted.


the ability to use detailed satellite imagery is a "very new tool" when its paired with archaeology.

this from the same article.

"Just a few weeks ago, for example, NASA scientists utilizing space- and aircraft-based remote sensing hardware and techniques uncovered Maya ruins hidden in the rainforests of Central America for more than 1,000 years."

i'm no total dork when it comes to this stuff..............i just saw the article and saw the additional information AND the fact that the person doing the study was an NSA security analyst (30yrs) he's been studying this project for the past 13. he's using his background to gather new information.

just seemed like something worthwhile to share...........

guess not.

angie

Anything that has to do with prove of the bible connection is always good to share, not only for the believers but also for the ones that do not believe.

In my opinion to many people has been in Ararat looking for many years to come empty handed.

If something was in that mountain 6 thousand years ago it would be completely gone by now specially wood or any remains would be hard to find.

The snow is not something that stays in one place it shifts as time goes by.

This is a joke right?

I mean ... 13 years and not once actually visit the site in person? It looks nothing like a boat shape anyways. Obviously nothing more then another natural geological formation being claimed to be the ark. !3 years ...

Actually is not that people has not been in the area, but more that the country's instability has stopped foreigners from getting into their lands.

If they don't control the flow mount Ararat would have been hacked to pieces a long time ago.

Eh, wonder why they won't hack it themselve's. I mean, looking at the picture on cnn, it's obviously nothing more then a geological formation. There's been other natural formation's similar in shape that've been claimed to be the ark. Actually, those other formations looked more like a boat shape then this formation does. 13 year sitting on this project and having gained no further information on the formation just seems odd.

Why not using a small plane to fly over this Ararat mountain? That would cost not that much and the pics would be better too. If no one has done it, then it is beacuse no one realy believes this.

BTW, I just saw it is 5,137 metres (16,854 ft) hight! No way water could go that high and then, pufff, disapear..

Originally posted by looofo
Why not using a small plane to fly over this Ararat mountain?

Well is not as easy as it sounds the peak is always coveret with fog and clouds, the weather in the area is very unpredictable, also getting approval from the authorities is very complicated.

The formation would look like rock because the wood has been petrified. The thing that would make the find unique is that there would be large slabs of petrified wood laying on top of one another. I just asume that the top portion of the ark would have caved in after it became weighted down by heavy petrified wood. If people are finding wood chunks from the site that can be burned then those pieces would not be from the true Ark because it would have all turned to a stone like condition.

It takes millions of years to turn wood into stone--10,000 + or - is not enough time to make a wooden ark into a rock; unless you have an environment that is filled with silica-rich hot water.

Besides that, the ark would have been made with felled trees--by the time it came to rest the trees would not be filled with cellulose--another necessity (it would seem) for petrification.

The ark would have had to been buried in sedimentary layers, percolated under pressure, with mineral-rich water, during the petrification. Mt. Ararat is a stratovolcano, and everything I've read says it is entirely composed of intermediate igneous rock--absolutely devoid of sedimentary layers, as far as they've investigated (and usually around only 50% to 60% silica--not enough for petrification).

It just doesn't seem possible that the ark is now rock--although if it isn't rock, then surely it isn't, at all... How long could wood endure in such a climate? Even gopher wood (whatever that is).

But the 'anomaly' is most certainly a rock, IMO. Considering the composition of Ararat, it seems to be not unusual at all, geologically speaking--except maybe for it's curious protruberance, but that could be nothing more than just the circumstances of the geology and the snow.

The lack of sedimentation and the method of formation make it suspect, too, IMO. It doesn't appear to have been submerged as the majority of other peaks around the world have (because of fossil records). It could have emerged, by way of lava flow, after the flood. They aren't sure when it erupted--a minor one/earthquake seems to have happened in 1840 something, and they feel reasonably sure it has erupted within the last 10,000 years. There's not a lot of certainty about it even being available at the right time for the ark.

There are a few other problems with Ararat, too--it wasn't even Ararat until around 1100 AD. The bible doesn't mention Ararat--it mentions Armenia. Armenia is a very mountainous country--it's filled up by the lesser Causcasus mountains--the highest point of which is called Mt. Aragats... at about 13.000 feet elevation.

My point being only this:
why is Mt Ararat so decidedly the proposed site?

There isn't really anything conclusive to support the exhuberance with which its been attacked by countless would-be ark discoverers. If you read about the development of this popular opinion of the ark's supposed location, it looks more and more like the mountain was named and dedicated by the search--rather than actually inspiring these quests because of likelihood, it has been given fame and reputation, practically a life of its own--based only on a consensus that has grown out of a rumor hinted at within the last millenium.

Originally posted by queenannie38
My point being only this:
why is Mt Ararat so decidedly the proposed site?

You got my vote for that very insightful post I also wonder why people are so fixated about making Ararat the place of the ark.

Jacobians have the Ark, its not the ship but our written laws that guys with rank have access to. See my Jacobian Literature Thread. Its secret knowledge of the Ark unless you are Supreme Elite or a Regent.

Originally posted by MMP
Am I the only person alive that thinks the circled area is showing nothing more than a huge chunk of rock???

Nope, in fact I've never been able to see anything the least bit convincing in any of these photos, aside from the red outlines added to suggest the shape of a boat in the natural features of the mountain. If there is any conspiracy involved here, it's the conspiracy to keep this "story" moving forward without any shred of actual photographic evidence.

I wouldn't take the fact that CNN had a bit on it to mean that its legit, just that they were reporting on a 'human interest' story about a guy who is going to 'check it out'. Lots of people have, in fact, checked out the 'anomalies' on mt. ararat, no one has ever found 'noah's ark'. This is probably because there is no such thing as 'noah's ark', and that, indeed, there was never any 'global flood'.

amb1063
just seemed like something worthwhile to share........... guess not.

It was a good find, and its interseting to see that the news is reporting on this stuff still.

lostinspace
The formation would look like rock because the wood has been petrified.

When wood is petrified, its shape isn't changed. Besides, wood has to be buried in sediment to become petrified.

The thing that would make the find unique is that there would be large slabs of petrified wood laying on top of one another

Sure, if it existed, we might expect to find something like that, yes.

I just asume that the top portion of the ark would have caved in after it became weighted down by heavy petrified wood

? If the whole structure was buried and petrified, it wouldn't necessarily collapse. They have found skeletons of little lizards fossilized inside of fossilized tree strumps, so the ark might as well surive. Regardless, the discovery of cut and worked petrified wood on Mt. ararat woudl be something of a success for the 'ark is real' crowd, depending on the circumstances, as would finding, say, the rotted out carbonized remains of wood and pitch, etc.

because it would have all turned to a stone like condition

It wouldn't necessarily turn to stone.

otherwise,

There's a thread floating around somewhere here on ATS with that as well ... along with a bunch more geological formations that look just like it. It's not the ark, just a natural common geological formation in that area where more just like it can be found. Do a search here on ATS to find the thread, which has picture's with these formation's around it.