Originally Posted by
STONY
When It's Been Burried In Ice And Snow And Deprived Of Oxygen For Years And Years. Think About It...
It would be wonderful if the ark was found. So far it has not been found. Some claims to discovery are dealt with here:
On the snowy cap of Mount Ararat, lodged in ice, lies the shadowy form of a boat the size of a battleship. "Hallelujah,'' cried a triumphant Antonio Palego. ``It's Noah's Ark!''
He says the ark has been preserved in ice for over 4,000 years. A small piece of wood found in the same area by a French explorer friend and authenticated as dating from the time of the flood is physical evidence of his find, he says.
===
Ed Davis’ story of seeing the Ark has been circulated widely among Ark hunters and dismissed by many as the pipe dream of an old man with a big imagination and a faulty memory. [Robin Simons] spent a day talking with this man. This is what he said: "Something happened to me in '43 that's haunted me all my life... "I'm in the 363rd Army Corps of Engineers working out of a base in Hamadan (ancient Ekbatan), Iran. My driver Badi Abas. points to a distant peak that's sometimes visible and says, 'Agri Dagh, my home.' "We can see it clearly on the horizon with its year-round snow cap. 'Mt. Ararat, that's where the Ark landed? I say. He nods.
" Abas points down into a kind of horseshoe crevasse and says, 'That's Noah's Ark.' But I can't see anything. Everything's the same color and texture. Then I see it -- a huge, rectangular, man-made structure partly covered by a talas of ice and rock, lying on its side. At least a hundred feet are clearly visible.
===
When Stephen marked the locations of the anomalies he found on a topographical map of Ararat, I immediately saw they were in the same area that my grandfather indicated to me many years before. However, this does not mesh with Davis' story
====
The Learning Channel broadcast a film July 31, 1995, about the work of Wyatt, Fasold, and John Baumgardner Ph.D. However, as evidence against Noah’s Ark being at Durupinar has mounted and people like Arthur Brandenberger Ph.D. of Ohio State University (1959-1960) and Dr. John Baumgardner of Los Alamos National Laboratories (1980s-1990s) pulled back in their support of the formation, the Durupinar supporters seem to have evolved their view to say now that Durupinar is no longer the actual remains of Noah's Ark where Ron Wyatt stated it contained trainloads of wood inside of the formation, but is an imprint at the location where Noah's Ark stopped after the 500 foot long boat slid down the hill several thousand feet via a geologic flow which amazingly, did not turn the boat over or destroy its shape whatsoever.
====
Murat Avci made it scientifically clear that the Durupinar site is just a freak of nature and nothing special. The title of the presentation was "Geomorphological Surface Shape that looks like Ship Form in Agri" and "The Formation and Mechanics of the great Telceker Earth Flow."
==
According to the Ron Wyatt view, the ark later deteriorated or was scavenged and destroyed. The alleged "anchor" or ‘drogue’ stones fifteen miles away at Kazan are extremely controversial.
==
B.J. Corbin visited the Durupinar site in 1989, 1990, and 1998, and does not believe that it is the remains of Noah's Ark. Corbin viewed similar boat/canoe-shaped formations near Mt. Ararat during helicopter flights, and the formation appears natural and similar to the surroundings and mudflow.
==
Rex Geissler and an archaeologist also visited the site in 2000 and 2001 and were unimpressed by its archaeological significance. The natural qualities of the geologic flow down the length of the hill are obvious. ArcImaging contends that a professional dig of the site would be in order, along with independent, expert analyses of the contents as most interested parties have preconceived biases for or against the site.
=
George Vandeman concluded that "there vere no visible archaeological remains" and that this formation "was a freak of nature and not man-made."
=
Wyatt said the chemical analysis he had done prove that the Durupinar site is a decomposed wooden boat. He says his two lab reports show that the carbon percentages are different within the formation (4.95%) and outside the formation (1.88%) "positively prove it to be composed of very ancient wood and metal" What Wyatt does not tell his readers is that both of these carbon percentages fall within the normal bounds of soil and does not show evidence of wood!
=
From: John Baumgardner <
[email protected] >
To:
[email protected]
September 26, 1996 7:13 PM
Regarding my position on the Durupinar site, the core drilling we performed in 1988 settled the issue as far as I am concerned--the site is a natural formation, nothing more, produced by a mud slide as mud flowed around a ridge-shaped block of basement rock that is still present inside the resulting boat-shaped form. My very firm conclusions [are] reached after the extensive geophysical investigations we conducted at the site in 1987 and 1988. I am convinced the remains of the Ark must be somewhere else, that such remains are emphatically _not_ associated with this boat-shaped formation. The central claims Wyatt and Fasold have been making about the site are bogus.
=
My reasons for concluding the site has nothing to do with the ark are based on the geophysical surveys my team performed in 1987 together with the core drilling we performed in 1988 which revealed a massive ridge of inside the site and aligned with the site's long axis.
This ridge actually outcrops at the surface over about 40% of the length of the site, and accounts for the stability of the site relative to the surrounding terrain as well as for its distinctive boatlike shape. The rock material that comprises the ridge matches that in nearby outcrops, especially that in the roadcut above the visitor's center. The material Ron claims is petrified wood is igneous rock of basaltic composition. We have analyzed many samples of it here at our laboratory.
MORGANITE
:)