Big Floods

It is a military zone. Even a turkish citizen must get a permit to climb the north face. Getting a permit (for a non turkish citizen) is probably harder. I am sure an american citizen can get a permit to climb this area of the mountain.

 

http://216.117.163.114/Eyewitnesses.htm

there's been far more than two americans who've claimed to seen the arc up close, unfortunately, their testimonies are either easily explained, can't be believed (such as Ed Davis, who you're probably referring to), or they lied. Several were hoaxers that went up just to say they saw the arc and see how gullible people were.

There is absolutely no photo that exists showing the arc. Further, ground penetrating radar has shown that those structures are rock. The only sites that no ground penetrating radar hasn't been used, and where many of these eyewitnesses claim the arc to be are under ice, in glaciers. It's completely unnecessary to even look at them, because the arc would have been ground to bits. That being said, arcimaging is scheduled to perform further ground penetrating radar scans to lay this debate to rest.

The arcimaging team has been all over Mt. Ararat. They weren't allowed to go up this year due to engagements with terrorist groups in the area, but they have been up there. Last year, in fact. Footage from then and from years before is here:

http://arcimaging.org/

all developments on the continuing search for the arc is here, complete with followup on every mission to mt. ararat if the parties that went would provide it. They've also followed up on the documents regarding the Freedom of Information Act, and that issue has been closed as well.

http://noahsarksearch.com/

 

I understand that the story of the Ark and the people who have claimed to of seen it numbers more than two. I also understand that there are stories that cannot be believed. Yet considering the details that some have provided in recent years, I would not jump to quickly at branding some as liars.

We do have the photo by Ahmet Arslan taken in 1989, and we do have Satellite photos from space that do show anomalies on Ararat. We also have an image from june 19, 1949 U.S. Air Force Mission that captured a panoramic view of what is simply called "the Ararat Anomaly". AND THERE HAS BEEN NO GROUND PENETRATING RADAR USED TO DISPROVE THESE PHOTOS.

NOT MANY PEOPLE HAVE BEEN ON THE NORTH SLOPE. AND THIS IS WHERE THEY BELIEVE THE ARK TO BE. YOU MIGHT WANT TO CHECK OUT THESE TWO WEB SITES.

http://www.noahsarksearch.com/abich2.htm
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/planetearth/noahs_ark_010823-1.html

 

Just wanted to mention according to those who have claimed to of seen the Ark up close, they report that the structure is stone. Petrified wood. Radar maybe of little use if that is true.

 

WIKIPEDIA, THE FREE ENCYCLOPEDIA
Is open to fraud and abuse by groups, organisations, or individuals with delusions, psychosis, problem or agenda. I wouldn't be at all surprised if you have added to it's data base and reputation.

 

"For there to be portions of Noah's Ark still intact in the Abich II Glacier, one would have to assume that the ark was already petrified like rock, prior to the slow journey down the Abich II Glacier, otherwise the glacial forces would have ground the ark to bits."

That from the article you posted.

Point #1 - Petrification doesn't just happen. As with fossilization, specific conditions that probably wouldn't be met if the ark myth were true, must be fulfilled.
http://www.geocities.com/Yosemite/Campground/5660/palette.html

Point #2 - Glaciers are not sessile. They move, and are capable of carving huge formations in rock and with rock. They can also carry stuff. Chances are good that if this happened, any ark wouldn't be anywhere near the top of the mountain by now, and would probably be far below where the glacier melts.

Point #3 - As you can see from the table posted, many accounts have been made. I'm sure more match than just two, and bring more than one conclusion.

Point #4 - The pictures you mentioned show nothing. A snowy mountain with big rocks. That's what's in the picture because that's what it is. There is nothing special about the forms shown.

 

The Glacier has remained intact for thousands of years, the sightings of the Ark have been reported for thousands of years. The eyewitiness accounts are all to similar to ignore. Also, there are the reports from the Czars army inwhich 100 russians were sent to the site to take pictures of the Ark. Of coarse that happen at the same time the revolution in Russia broke out and the pictures vanished. Yet, two men from that expidition were located, and were found living right here in the United States. Both men were unaware of the others existance in the States, yet, both men told the same story of the Ark. Which also confirms the stories told by the two Americans. The pictures show nothing to you, because you don't want to believe anything. Yet, there has been so many other accounts that tell the same story, it would be a stretch to brand all of these people as liars. Also, the latest picture which was taken by the Turkish climber has been look at by some of our best people in the field. And it was their opinion that the object was manmade. You see what you want to see, I'm just going by what the experts are saying. When the Russians were on the mountain, I believe the Ark was together. It broke in two after an earthquake. The two Americans both reported that it was broken in two. The pictures from space indicate that there is a manmade object on the mountain that appears broken in two, and is seperated by about 1200 feet.

 

If I can just throw my two cents in here.
I took a lot of time to study up on this issue and obviously there is a lot of research into this whole Noahs Ark thing.
Personally, I dont believe that if it was found - the naysayers would do anything else but exactly what they have done with the Flood Evidence: Usurp it and then act like THEY found Noahs Ark and then use it to 'show' that it confused early humans who then made up a story 'around it'.

Anyways, The Turkish Gov has 'Officially' found Noahs Ark and its really a very very degenerated remnant which has become more fossilised into the shape of the ground than an actual 'thing' to go see.
I have to say - it is pretty convincing despite people claiming its really the remains of an ancient fort.
Having said that....
There is really no denying there is 'Something' going on up on top of that mountain in terms of some kind of man-made structure or shape or object?
I would doubt any number of these reports but there are too many 'good' ones over the last 100+ years to make me take it lightly.
In particular, Reports filed by Russian Pilots (back in Communist days) and some Turkish guides having made legitimate reports and these sorts of things.
As near as I can tell - what they seem to be talking about is not actually just 'on' the mountain but submerged in a frozen lake and then covered in snow (depending on the climate of course).
Im not all full-scale convinced about anything here but I must say there is some entirely good evidence so far to at least warrant more serious investigation.

 

The "experts" have said that there is a possibility. I'm willing to accept that. There's also a possibility that the shapes shown are the remains of an ancient mountaintop palace. Maybe it's an alien spaceship. Possibilities go very far. However...Likelihood of petrification is close to nil, glaciers don't just move stuff, they grind and abrade and basically wear and tear.

Earthquake? If an earthquake on top of a mountain was powerful enough to break something like that in two, wouldn't it also have sent the glacier rolling to the bottom in pieces? That would have made a huge avalanche. The picture from space shows a bunch of splotches that look like the rest of the splotches there.

 

I thought the one Satellite photo (not sure if its linked here) but it shows what 'appears' to be a rectangle shape.
Im told it was taken on an unusually warm summer day but Id have to check that again.
The only thing I have to wonder is the picture image.
Sure, it appears to be an 'unnatural' geometric item but Id like to see some clearer photos and or something better before I got really excited.

IF its still in some recogniseable condition that would be amazing.
You would think it would have been taken to pieces and used for other houses, equipments, fires and so on.
Anything left has to be what.. about 4,700 years old?
Consider we dont necessarily get winter weather right off the bat and who knows what we have left after just good old erosion itself.
I dunno.
I would really like to know why it has been so difficult to get some serious technology and manpower up there.
Between Christians, Muslims, Plain old Archaeology Buffs and Hollywood (even skeptics would donate for the chance to DISprove it).
You would think a thousand man team and five million in equipment would do it?
The Turks could make a FORtUne in Tourism off the whole venture and you would think they would sponsor it themselves!

 

"Junk Science" goes and spreads pretty rapid... take caution that you are not deceived.

 

Look no further than Darwinianism.

 

Haha.