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.

 

Is the strange object on Ararat really Noah's Ark?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 25 2006 @ 02:33 AM
link   
For years there was a problem with pictures being released of a government flyby over the area. Not too long ago, those photos, or at least the cloudy ones, were revealed to the public. What is seen on the side of the infamous mountaintop, is what appears to be a boat shaped object.
Ark Photos
Here's a link to a site that contains some of the pictures. Now, photos such as this have been around for some time, and new ones surface everyday. What is interesting, is when you pair images such as this with stories from local villagers about how they had not only seen the Ark, but walked upon its deck. There is another controversial discovery having to do with Ron Wyatt and what he believes was the Ark covered over and petrified in lava during an explosion long ago. Only his claim is that Noah's Ark landed in the MOUNTAINS OF ARARAT. Not necessarily Ararat itself. When you think about the size of the mountain, which was once active, you have to wonder how ANYTHING could have survived up there anyway without some form of preservation. If you buy into any of it, can you really say that a moving glacier covered the Ark and preserved it? Knowing that any movement of ice and snow would most likely destroy such a vessel? Any thoughts guys?




posted on Apr, 25 2006 @ 05:28 AM
link   
These anomalies can be found in many different types of of aerial photos.

I feel they would be hard pressed to convince the masses of these anomalies being Noah's Ark.

If you check out some of the other threads about Noah's Ark, the community gives some very good arguments both ways.

As much as I would like to see Noah's Ark uncovered somewhere... I don't think it will ever happen.



posted on Apr, 25 2006 @ 06:44 AM
link   
If you just showed me that photo without any captions and without anything circled in red, I wouldnt see anything. Except a huge mountain of course



posted on Apr, 25 2006 @ 06:53 PM
link   
How can such a biodegradeable material like wood survive as long as it has? Surely the Ark would have rotted away unless: a) It was actually a spaceship
or b) It was actually a databse of DNA collected from every animal. Still



posted on Apr, 25 2006 @ 07:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by JackofBlades
How can such a biodegradeable material like wood survive as long as it has? Surely the Ark would have rotted away

Not necessarily. There have been discoveries of mummified human remains in the Andes and the Alps many millennia old. Low oxygen, low moisture.



posted on Apr, 26 2006 @ 07:03 AM
link   
well considering that the Noahs Ark story was taken from the Sumerians "Epic of Gligamesh and is one of many "flood" myths that exist in other ancient civilizations scattered all around the world , it cannot physically exist. What you see is a geological anomaly.

there are many links here is one

www.nwcreation.net...





[edit on 26-4-2006 by _Deliverance_]



posted on Apr, 26 2006 @ 05:40 PM
link   
Great Flood, Fact or Fiction?
This isn't too far from what is being discussed here, and adds some interesting light to the subject



posted on Apr, 26 2006 @ 05:47 PM
link   
As it was explained to me by a friend of mine, IF it's on the top of a Mountain, and If there are Glaciers moving, it should be towards the bottom if anything...



posted on Apr, 26 2006 @ 05:53 PM
link   
The biblical Noah is not necessarily derived from the Gilgamesh Epic, though the two have surprisingly similar events. Granted, the Epic was enscribed long before the release of the Noah story, but off the top of your head, couldn't you name quite a few stories that weren't recorded until CENTURIES after they were first told? I'm having some problems with the links being in the same body as the text, so I'll place some interesting ones in the next post.



posted on Apr, 26 2006 @ 06:06 PM
link   
Ark comparisons in the two flood stories


here is one that shows the relationship between the two arks. As you can see when compared to the texts, the data is accurately portrayed. Interesting, that the sumerian gods didnt seem to have any idea of sea craftsmenship. Or, was Ea just giving Utnapishtim the cruedest possible plans for a device that would merely float, though make everyone aboard extremely motion sick at best? Hmmm. Pretty sick....



posted on Apr, 26 2006 @ 09:02 PM
link   
Only way we will ever know is when the Turkish Government starts letting people hike up the mountain, till then keep theorizing



posted on Apr, 26 2006 @ 09:25 PM
link   
How about where the Ark of Noah was built. Lets start with that before we find out where it landed. According to some certain church, everything that happened in the Genesis account form Adam to the Flood of Noah occurred upon the North American continent. This at first sound wild and crazy, but then it could have been anywhere on the earth, as a matter of fact, for no one knows. It could only make scientifc sense if the Flood of Noah occurred upon only one continent, and not upon the entire planet. The Ark could have been sweft off of this continent and then blown across the oceans. As well, the Bible says the "mountains" of Ararat, which means the foothills of Mount Ararat. One other key is to find where the Garden of Eden was located. That would give us the land of the Flood of Noah. Right? Well, the rivers of the Garden of Eden had four great heads, or headwaters. And guess what. The Mississippi River is the only river in the world which has four heads!!! This is something to think about. What do you other members think?



posted on Apr, 26 2006 @ 10:17 PM
link   
Link
Dont forget the jews were inslaved in babylon for centuries, this is where they got the story. Then Babylonian mythology was largely based on Sumerian mythology, even though we dont have any written record of the flood myth in sumerian, scholars have deducted that the flood myth was sumerian.

So i urge all of you too first find out the origins of the myth, best way of finding th true location.



posted on Apr, 26 2006 @ 10:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by truthound
How about where the Ark of Noah was built. Lets start with that before we find out where it landed. According to some certain church, everything that happened in the Genesis account form Adam to the Flood of Noah occurred upon the North American continent. This at first sound wild and crazy, but then it could have been anywhere on the earth, as a matter of fact, for no one knows. It could only make scientifc sense if the Flood of Noah occurred upon only one continent, and not upon the entire planet. The Ark could have been sweft off of this continent and then blown across the oceans. As well, the Bible says the "mountains" of Ararat, which means the foothills of Mount Ararat. One other key is to find where the Garden of Eden was located. That would give us the land of the Flood of Noah. Right? Well, the rivers of the Garden of Eden had four great heads, or headwaters. And guess what. The Mississippi River is the only river in the world which has four heads!!! This is something to think about. What do you other members think?


Alright. Here is something better to think about, something that would go along better with the notion of the Ark coming to rest somewhere in the Mesopotamian valley. It is true that the Garden of Eden had four river heads. Look at the geology of the Persian Gulf, where the Garden of Eden is believed to have been located. Four ancient river beds would have emptied into this spot and converged into a single mouth before emptying themselves into the sea. The first two: The Tigris and Euprates, of course. Now on slightly separate paths than their ancient flows. Second, the Pison and the Gihon. There are your four river heads. The Mississippi river is the only river in the world that CURRENTLY can meet these specs. Keep in mind that during the time the Great Flood was supposed to occur, this river would have been coursing along a differnent route, and was not nearly as large as it is today. Over the course of time, rivers change course and flow differently. Geological readings along Egypt and its neighboring countries has even shown that the Nile might once have flown on an entirely separate axis line, as an ancient river bed has been found that stops short of the Nile's current location. It is just as large. Either there was once another river that spidered off of this heartline, or the Nile did indeed once flow in another direction entirely. It just isn't really conceivable that the Mississipi could be a location for the biblical Garden of Eden. Good point about the river heads though.



posted on Apr, 26 2006 @ 10:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by wang
Link
Dont forget the jews were inslaved in babylon for centuries, this is where they got the story. Then Babylonian mythology was largely based on Sumerian mythology, even though we dont have any written record of the flood myth in sumerian, scholars have deducted that the flood myth was sumerian.

So i urge all of you too first find out the origins of the myth, best way of finding th true location.


The flood myth for the Sumerians is contained in the Epic of Gilgamesh, which IS a Sumerian text. In fact, it is not only the oldest recorded myth of the great flood, it is the oldest recorded story of ANYTHING to our knowledge today. This is why scholars believe that the biblical story of Noah was contrived from the Sumerians. The Epic of Gilgamesh is older than any know copy of Noah's Ark from the Bible. The argument even now goes back and forth over who copied who. Personally, I enjoy the sumerian version more, but the biblical version seems to be logistically more plausible. The time frames in the Epic and the construction of the Ark is strained, to say the least. The part about Babylon is partly true though, they did take large pieces of Sumerian culture into their own ways, but you have to consider that Babylon was originally OF Sumeria, King of cities among the Mesopotamians, and was only later conquered and converted to other purposes. When Cyrus the Great of Persia entered the city in 539 B.C., Babylon became a Persian province and even though Cyrus helped to maintain many original beliefs in Babylon, it eventually succumbed to outside influences and began to fade into obscurity. In fact, I would venture to say that Alexander's death year a few hundred years later is the only other major incident of note in Babylon for some time.




top topics



 
0

log in

join