Noah's Ark Has Been Found. Why Are They Keeping Us In The Dark?

I just came across this article and I was intrigued. I'm curious to know your thoughts, as this has been discussed heavily around here.

How It Was Discovered

In 1959, Turkish army captain Llhan Durupinar discovered an unusual shape while examining aerial photographs of his country. The smooth shape, larger than a football field, stood out from the rough and rocky terrain at an altitude of 6,300 feet near the Turkish border with Iran.

noahs ark found
Photo: www.viewzone.com...

Capt. Durupinar was familiar with the biblical accounts of the Ark and its association with Mount Ararat in Turkey, but he was reluctant to jump to any conclusions. The region was very remote, yet it was inhabited with small villages. No previous reports of an object this odd had been made before. So he forwarded the photographic negative to a famous aerial photography expert named Dr. Brandenburger, at Ohio State University.

Brandenburger was responsible for discovering the Cuban missile bases during the Kennedy era from reconnaissance photos, and after carefully studying the photo, he concluded: "I have no doubt at all, that this object is a ship. In my entire career, I have never seen an object like this on a stereo photo."

The first part of the survey was to examine the object and take its measurements. The shape looked like hull of a ship. One end was pointed as you would expect from bow [below: D] and the opposite end was blunt like a stern. The distance from bow to stern was 515 feet, or exactly 300 Egyptian cubits. The average width was 50 cubits. These were the exact measurements mentioned in the Bible.

On the starboard side (right) near the stern there were four vertical bulges protruding from the mud [B], at regular intervals, that were determined to be the "ribs" of the hull [see below]. Opposite to these, on the port side, a single rib [A] protrudes from the mud. You can see its curved shape very clearly. Surrounding it are more ribs, still largely buried in the mud, but visible upon close examination.

Remember that this object, if it is the Ark, is extremely old. The wood has been petrified. Organic matter has been replaced by minerals from the earth. Only the shapes and traces of the original wood remain. Perhaps this is why the expedition in 1960 was disappointed. They anticipated finding and retrieving chucks of wood, long since eroded.

Artifacts Retrieved From The Ark

Using the GPR, Ron Wyatt discovered an open cavity on the starboard side. He used an improvised drill to make core sample inside this cavity and retrieved several very interesting objects. Below you can see the artifacts which were sent for laboratory analysis. On the left is the bore hole [see below], followed by what turned out to be petrified animal dung, then a petrified antler and lastly a piece of cat hair.

Visit the article to learn more about this.

I make no claims on the truth of the matter, but definitely feel it garners discussion.

Source: www.sunnyskyz.com...

Probably because they know how to do their research, unlike some people around here.

www.csun.edu...

www.examiner.com...

www.csmonitor.com...

It's been proven to be bogus.

reply to post by AfterInfinity


I appreciate the additional links but there is nothing "proving" this to be bogus. Again, I make no claims that this is true or not but it's worth discussing. All snarky replies aside.

I personally do not believe the original tale of Noah's ark in the sense of the grandeur but the story came from someplace and that is worth the additional research into the matter.

AfterInfinity
Probably because they know how to do their research, unlike some people around here.

www.csun.edu...

www.examiner.com...

www.csmonitor.com...

It's been proven to be bogus.

edit on 17-12-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)

Well that's not quite a scientific paper now is it? It's doubtful the person that wrote it even had access to the materials as everything they wrote is anecdotal and not direct. Their conclusion was based on analysis of the pictures from the original article and their opinion of the geology of the area it was discovered in.

reply to post by freakjive


Of all of the stories surrounding the Ark the location fits the biblical story pretty well ..I guess for me even if they hadn't presented this evidence I would still believe it but this seems to fit best for me ...thanks for the post S&F

reply to post by freakjive


Did you read the links? There seems to be plenty of evidence showing that this is a natural formation....

reply to post by freakjive


Interesting find. I don't believe in the story of "god" or Noah but that's my opinion.

It's an odd shape if it is a natural formation.

Thanks for sharing.

reply to post by freakjive


Old story, rehashed to promote the new Russell Crow Movie. Noah, to be released early in the New Year.

rangerdanger
reply to post by freakjive

 

Did you read the links? There seems to be plenty of evidence showing that this is a natural formation....

I read through and basically dismissed both the CSM and Examiner article. This article (with actual sources) seems to hold the most weight for a possible debunk. www.csun.edu...

I understand that there might have been financial motive for the placing of wood from a different site bringing about the hoax.

This is why I brought this to ATS...for discussion.

I remember watching a documentary on Discovery back in the very late 90's about it. I haven't done any research on it since I first saw the documentary so I could be wrong, but I believe it hasn't been researched (at least during that time) because it was stuck between two nations that didn't like each other. (They were afraid that the military might open fire.)

Pretty interesting though. Would love to see someone do more research on it.

AfterInfinity
Probably because they know how to do their research, unlike some people around here.

www.csun.edu...

www.examiner.com...

www.csmonitor.com...

It's been proven to be bogus.

edit on 17-12-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)

The links appear to not give any real evidence against this being a possibility. If we are assuming the story written in the bible is exactly how this transpired then maybe it makes it impossible. If the story is simply a re-written story with the names, places and times changed it becomes much more plausible.

The only way your links have declared this a HOAX is if the original story from the bible is to be believed word for word as it was written, which in itself can really never be proven.

If you believe, as I do, that the bible is simply a compilation of many stories passed down from generations then this being "Noah's Ark" could very well be true....just not matching up with the particular iteration of the story that happens to be written in the bible. Epic of Gilgamesh anyone?

reply to post by Vasa Croe

The only way your links have declared this a HOAX is if the original story from the bible is to be believed word for word as it was written, which in itself can really never be proven.

When you are feel compelled to include this point in your argument, there's no longer any point arguing.

Based on evidence shown, I would say it's bogus.

On another note, we have similar structures around Europe, some were thought to be for training purposes and some are tombs.

reply to post by AfterInfinity


According to your "scientific sources"

Fossiliferous limestone, interpreted as cross cutting the syncline, preclude the structure from being Noah's Ark because these supposed "Flood" deposits are younger than the "Ark." Anchor stones at Kazan (Arzap) are derived from local andesite and not from Mesopotamia.

Younger than the ark? Ohhhh, science has that exact timeline called carbon dating that is so tried and true.....ahem....

reasonably eliminate the possibility that the anchor stones were transported to Kazan by Noah's Ark. Because of the great weight of these stones, a nearby source is much more likely.

Ahhhh.....Much more likely....Sounds pretty scientific and proof..

Although these relationships might seem to be logical evidence to indicate that the structure was originally man-made, I, as a geologist, can show that all these features could be formed by natural processes.

COULD??? Scientific??

Therefore, if such a correlation can be demonstrated, further support is provided that the Ark structure is not man-made.

Where exactly??

Finally, David Fasold suggested that, although the structure is not Noah's Ark, it may very well be the site which the ancients regarded as the ship of the Deluge and may have played a role in the Flood story. As a geologist, I find this to be a interesting speculation.

Wait, I thought this was natural? Why would this play a role in a story if a natural occurance?

Much of what Fasold uncovered should be viewed as circumstantial

I can probably stop now....Why even go on to the rest of the "proof" that this story is bogus??

Try reading your actual links before trying to bash a thread next time....This first one is an absolute joke to say the least...

Good find OP!

They aren't exactly keeping us in the dark when they've even built a visitor centre next to it are they?



It's 6000 feet above sea level,and even if all the ice in the world had melted and raised the sea level by 200 feet at the most,there just wouldn't be enough water elsewhere in the world to deposit a ship that far up a mountain.

Oh and of course Ron Wyatt is the biggest con man ever born.His only real interest was that his government payed for him to go on holidays in hot far away countries every year.This was the same con man who also found the wheels from THE chariot races,the exact place where the red sea was parted and the site of the crucifixion of Jesus Christ.Of course he forgot to share his findings with anyone else.In the charts of the worlds greatest con men,he's not hat far behind Eric Von Daniken and his trips in flying saucers.

AfterInfinity
reply to post by Vasa Croe

 

The only way your links have declared this a HOAX is if the original story from the bible is to be believed word for word as it was written, which in itself can really never be proven.

When you are feel compelled to include this point in your argument, there's no longer any point arguing.

edit on 17-12-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)

Not necessarily. While it may be unlikely this is the Ark from the biblical story, that does not exclude it from being the original Ark from where the stories were derived. If this truly did happen and the story was passed from generation to the next and from culture to the next and adopted and adapted by each then who knows which is correct? This could actually be THE Ark from the original story but the religious community will all say it is the one from THEIR story.

It is a very interesting boat like shape. It would be very unusual if nature would make a shape like this. It could also be an old fortress of some kind. I have seen pictures of smaller old fortresses that shape.

There doesn't seem to be any other areas with that sort of material there, I doubt if it is made of lava. Although the ark was made of gofer wood and gofers live in the ground, making their homes of clay. Maybe gofers wood is actually a sort of cement. Maybe the interpretation of what gofers wood was is wrong.

Vasa Croe

AfterInfinity
reply to post by Vasa Croe

 

The only way your links have declared this a HOAX is if the original story from the bible is to be believed word for word as it was written, which in itself can really never be proven.

When you are feel compelled to include this point in your argument, there's no longer any point arguing.

edit on 17-12-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)

Not necessarily. While it may be unlikely this is the Ark from the biblical story, that does not exclude it from being the original Ark from where the stories were derived. If this truly did happen and the story was passed from generation to the next and from culture to the next and adopted and adapted by each then who knows which is correct? This could actually be THE Ark from the original story but the religious community will all say it is the one from THEIR story.

If such is the case, then there's no point to ascribing any significance other than "wow, there's something that looks like a bloody big boat in that spot". Which means all the speculation and reading into this thing is just that: speculation and reading into it.

Ron Wyatt also found the actual site of the Exodus crossing, complete with commemorative markers placed by King Solomon and Egyptian chariot parts from the dynasty of Moses' time on the floor of the sea, where there happens to be an underwater land bridge. He found the real Mt. Sinai, which is in Saudi Arabia surrounded by a military fence as well as stone altars with carvings as described in the Bible and the huge rock that Moses split in half and water poured out of which inexplicably has channels eroded by flowing water at its base. Mt. Sinai is charred black at the top by fire (he snuck over the fence to analyze the rocks), though nothing flammable is found there and no such feature exists in the surrounding area. He found Sodom and Gemorah (spelling could be wrong) which had been devastated by falling rocks of sulpher which completely covered both cities in inexplicable quantities, especially for the area, and had even melted the rock there. The sulpher was analyzed in a lab, which showed the it to be more pure and hot burning than any natural sulpher. Wyatt found the Arc of the Covenant deep within an underground cave system in Jerusalem. Blood had dripped from the surface through a crack and landed on the mercy seat of the arc, which had been uncovered so that the blood actually landed where the Jewish high priest used to sprinkle lamb's blood for the sins of Israel. Wyatt found that the crack started at the base of where he believes Jesus' cross was placed (there was an Earthquake at the moment of Jesus' death that split the Earth and destroyed the Jewish holy of holies). Wyatt had the blood analyzed by Israeli scientists, who found that the blood was still alive and contained only 24 chromosomes, 23 from the mother and one Y from a father. Apparently an angel told Wyatt that the world would not know of his discoveries until "the antichrist institutes the Sunday law." Those who won't believe will have no excuse. God is good.

AfterInfinity

Vasa Croe

AfterInfinity
reply to post by Vasa Croe

 

The only way your links have declared this a HOAX is if the original story from the bible is to be believed word for word as it was written, which in itself can really never be proven.

When you are feel compelled to include this point in your argument, there's no longer any point arguing.

edit on 17-12-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)

Not necessarily. While it may be unlikely this is the Ark from the biblical story, that does not exclude it from being the original Ark from where the stories were derived. If this truly did happen and the story was passed from generation to the next and from culture to the next and adopted and adapted by each then who knows which is correct? This could actually be THE Ark from the original story but the religious community will all say it is the one from THEIR story.

If such is the case, then there's no point to ascribing any significance other than "wow, there's something that looks like a bloody big boat in that spot". Which means all the speculation and reading into this thing is just that: speculation and reading into it.

edit on 17-12-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)

Sure...to me there is no major significance except to find out that maybe there was a huge flood and maybe the story of the Ark IS true. Now imagine what it would do to the religious world if it was proven it IS the Ark from the bible but did not occur in the timeline they believe it to be nor the region it was believed to happen. Say the story was true but not how it was written in the bible...

I would say either case would have a major impact on religious entities throughout the world.