Noah's Ark Found...

[Nucular]

... to be nothing more than a rocky outcrop, if you ask me. But this new QuickBird (satellite) photo of one of the rocky outcrops held by simple folk to be the Ark has got one or two excited, for some reason.

Can't say it looks like much to me, but there we are.

http://www.livescience.com/images/060308_ark_quickbird_02.jpg
Source (http://www.livescience.com/history/060309_the_ark.html)

[Cleon]

The ark's found every few years or so, always in a different place.

Shifty, that ark. Very shifty. Always hiding.

[hgc]

Pareidolia, Noah's Ark edition. It deserves its own page in DSM-IV.

[Tricky]

Looks just like an arrette to me.

[DSE]

Well, pictures don't lie. Guess that's the ark alright...

[Tricky]

Or in real life (and it's arrete, not arette)

[JamesDillon]

Did you read the article about the guy who's making this claim?

Taylor has been a national security analyst for more than 30 years, also serving as a senior associate for five years at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in Washington, D.C.

"I've got new found optimism ... as far as my continuing push to have the intelligence community declassify some of the more definitive-type imagery," Taylor told SPACE.com/LiveScience.

These are the people tapping our phones. I feel safer already.

[Dcdrac]

Hey look fossilized goats droppings on Mount Arrarat proff that Noah was there

[Pauliesonne]

what am I supposed to be looking at?

[Taarkin]

Did you read the article about the guy who's making this claim?



These are the people tapping our phones. I feel safer already.
I'm sure there's a cheap shot about WMDs one could mine from that as well.

[Pauliesonne]

This reminds me of that episode of The Simpsons when the townfolk find what they think is an angel but it turns out to be.....

well, you saw the episode.

[TragicMonkey]

That can't possibly be Noah's Ark. A much more Ark-looking bump was already found.

On Mars.

It's a tribute to the glory of God, and the amazingly poor navigation skills of Noah.

[Correa Neto]

what am I supposed to be looking at?

A fossilized giant paramecium.

[Zbu]

So a wooden Ark would fossilize into stone??

Man, these people are insane.

[ceo_esq]

So a wooden Ark would fossilize into stone??

Man, these people are insane.

Well, wood can do that (that's what petrified means), sometimes quite rapidly under the right conditions, but I suspect that a scientific expedition to the site would readily reveal that it's just an unremarkable geological feature.

[Zbu]

Well, wood can do that (that's what petrified means), sometimes quite rapidly under the right conditions, but I suspect that a scientific expedition to the site would readily reveal that it's just an unremarkable geological feature.

Oh, I know, but I keep thinking that a gigantic wooden ship that carried every single animal on it would collapse before it would turn to stone. Plus it may collapse onto itself if the deck became too heavy for the rest of the ship to hold it up. Plus it seems beached....

You know, it's just easier to call this stupid. :)

[Tricky]

Oh, I know, but I keep thinking that a gigantic wooden ship that carried every single animal on it would collapse before it would turn to stone. Plus it may collapse onto itself if the deck became too heavy for the rest of the ship to hold it up. Plus it seems beached....
Actually, the "beached" part is the most important. The most crucial thing for fossilization to occur is burial. According to the Bible, Noah's ark landed on a mountain, and a very tall one at that (since it was the first one he saw as the waters subsided). Mountains are sites of erosion, not deposition. If anything, the ark would be washed into the valleys and eventually into the sea, probably after rotting into tiny little pieces.

Yep. These are idiots we are dealing with here.

[Pauliesonne]

Actually, the "beached" part is the most important. The most crucial thing for fossilization to occur is burial. According to the Bible, Noah's ark landed on a mountain, and a very tall one at that (since it was the first one he saw as the waters subsided). Mountains are sites of erosion, not deposition. If anything, the ark would be washed into the valleys and eventually into the sea, probably after rotting into tiny little pieces.

Yep. These are idiots we are dealing with here.

DUH!

[Zbu]

All this makes me want to go out, chisel a surfboard out of rock, call it 'Noah's Board of Oceanic Deliverance,' and see how many suckers I can get money from until JREF calls me out.

Because you know, that would pay my mortgage easily.

[Nucular]

http://www.livescience.com/images/060309_quickbirdNL_02.jpg
Another version of the same image? From here (http://www.livescience.com/php/multimedia/imagedisplay/img_display.php?pic=060309_quickbirdNL_02.jpg&cap=DigitalGlobe%27s+QuickBird+commercial+remote+s ensing+satellite+imaged+the+Mt.+Ararat+%22anomaly% 22+in+2003.+This+image+has+never+seen+by+the+publi c+until+now.+The+anomaly++is+surrounded+below+by+v ery+rugged-looking+strato-volcanic+rock;+however,+the+texture+of+the+feature +in+question+is+relatively+smooth+and+appears+to+b e+made+of+a+different+substance.+Credit%3A+Digital Globe).

I'm pretty sure I've seen an old picture (taken from an aeroplane? In WW2??) of this same site, when it was first earmarked as one of the umpteen Ark sites, but I can't find it now. But I think the idea of this new picture is that it's higher resolution, better lighting, and still looks like an Ark (if you squint, turn your head sideways, hold your breath and take 250mcg of LSD).

[Soapy Sam]

Some idea of scale would be nice. That object could be 4 inches across , for all we know. Is the broken surface below and to the right trees? Crevassed ice? Broccoli?

[headscratcher4]

It looks like some sort of bean pod. Is that what the Ark looked like?

[UrsulaV]

Hey, if you squint real close, I bet you can see sasquatches there too!

[Nucular]

Some idea of scale would be nice. That object could be 4 inches across , for all we know. Is the broken surface below and to the right trees? Crevassed ice? Broccoli?
The face of the anomaly measured 1,015 feet (309 meters) across, Franz said.
How many cubits is that?

Franz adds, inexplicably,
I also found the shape of the anomaly appears to fit on a circle. I am not sure what this means, if anything, but I find it curious.
:confused:



(Source (http://www.livescience.com/history/060309_the_ark.html))

[ChristineR]

This one (http://www.csun.edu/~vcgeo005/bogus.html) is far more impressive.

[Nucular]

More images of the area from Space.com (http://www.space.com/php/multimedia/zoomviewer/index.php?display_img=ararat).

Requires a special viewer to see images, which I'm not going to install unless someone finds a hoard of tablets there entitled "Why My Ark is Better Than Utnapishtim's Loser Dinghy, By Noah aged 116½".

[Nucular]

This one (http://www.csun.edu/~vcgeo005/bogus.html) is far more impressive.
Yes, quite impressive discussion too.

[Serenity]

The ark's found every few years or so, always in a different place.

Shifty, that ark. Very shifty. Always hiding.Shifty indeed. By now, the fossilized ark has eroded and is moving very similar to shifting sand dunes in the wind. The real mystery is how it shifts and retains its ark-like appearance.

[Zep]

The bigger mystery is why hordes of people still pay those Creationist losers who claim to have found the ark buckets of money to go "research" these findings. Clearly our education systems need to be overhauled...

[JP1283]

Oh crap. The ark was found. Now I really regret committing the unforgivable sin.

[GodMark2]

It's a tribute to the glory of God, and the amazingly poor navigation skills of Noah.

It's not like he could just pull over an ask for directions.

[Cleon]

Oh crap. The ark was found. Now I really regret committing the unforgivable sin.

Don't say we didn't warn you. "JP," we said. "Voluntary consumption of Bud Lite angers the Almighty." But did you listen? Nooooo.

[Dr Adequate]

Actually, the "beached" part is the most important. The most crucial thing for fossilization to occur is burial. According to the Bible, Noah's ark landed on a mountain, and a very tall one at that (since it was the first one he saw as the waters subsided). Mountains are sites of erosion, not deposition. If anything, the ark would be washed into the valleys and eventually into the sea, probably after rotting into tiny little pieces. That just how atheists think that fossils are made. All credible scientists agree that fossilization is impossible because it contradicts the second law of thermodynamics. Therefore, God made fossils by magic.

[Correa Neto]

That can't possibly be Noah's Ark. A much more Ark-looking bump was already found.

On Mars.

It's a tribute to the glory of God, and the amazingly poor navigation skills of Noah.

You unholy monkey!!!

It was a Universal flood! What part of UNIVERSAL you fail to understand?

Glory to the Lord!!!!

[Moon-Spinner]

Watch out, this mountain might show up on ebay soon...

[bjb]

A cubit is equal to 0.5236 meters, so the biblical ark would have measured 157 meters long by 26 meters wide. The anomaly has a similar length to width ratio as the biblical ark, but it is about twice as large as it should be (309 meters). It is interesting that the article leaves out this detail, but not surprising.

[Smart_Cookie]

The Discovery Channel ran a show last week titled "Noah's Ark: The True Story".

My expectations were low when they started with almost the same image from the side of Mr. Ararat. But the show was very good.

They actually discussed early records of regional floods, that were found in the historical texts of surrounding regions. They speculated that the story could have originated from a story about an early Sumerian "king". He was a wealthy man who had a barge where he transported goods (like grains and animals) along the river.

Local large flood. Where else would you and your family take refuge? Everyone might have piled onto the boat, and rode out the flooding.
(story highly summarized)
It sure made more sense than the biblical version.

[Pauliesonne]

The Discovery Channel ran a show last week titled "Noah's Ark: The True Story".



They actually discussed early records of regional floods, that were found in the historical texts of surrounding regions. They speculated that the story could have originated from a story about an early Sumerian "king". He was a wealthy man who had a barge where he transported goods (like grains and animals) along the river.



I could swear that Penn and Teller spoke about excactly that on the episode they did about the bible.

[DSE]

The Discovery Channel ran a show last week titled "Noah's Ark: The True Story".

My expectations were low when they started with almost the same image from the side of Mr. Ararat. But the show was very good.

They actually discussed early records of regional floods, that were found in the historical texts of surrounding regions. They speculated that the story could have originated from a story about an early Sumerian "king". He was a wealthy man who had a barge where he transported goods (like grains and animals) along the river.

Local large flood. Where else would you and your family take refuge? Everyone might have piled onto the boat, and rode out the flooding.
(story highly summarized)
It sure made more sense than the biblical version.
Exactly. But I also don't think you even need a real event to see how a story like this might become popular. They still show a lot of Godzilla movies here, but that doesn't mean that they're based on a really big lizard being found somewhere.

[Beady]

They still show a lot of Godzilla movies here, but that doesn't mean that they're based on a really big lizard being found somewhere.

On the other hand, some parts of the world apparently were home to some really big apes, at one time.

[Correa Neto]

On the other hand, some parts of the world apparently were home to some really big apes, at one time.

Check the "classic" movie Godzilla X King Kong.:D

[Smart_Cookie]

Exactly. But I also don't think you even need a real event to see how a story like this might become popular. They still show a lot of Godzilla movies here, but that doesn't mean that they're based on a really big lizard being found somewhere.

The Noah's Ark story ends with a rainbow explanation, as God's covenant. The two don't really go together - the rainbow thing sounds like it was tacked on to the story.
Imagine - you're living thousands of years ago and what the heck is that multi-colored arc in the sky? You have no idea why it's there or what it is. Just people trying to explain something that they don't understand.

[T'ai Chi]

It's to tell from a cropped photo, and me not being an image analyst, if the object in question is anomalous in comparison to the other things surrounding it. If so, it is probably worth it for the person interested in it to study it further, whether it is an ark or not.

[Pyrrho]

Calling a geologic feature an "anomaly" doesn't make it an "anomaly", and an "anomaly" is not equivalent to "Noah's Ark". The only honest answer they can give is "We don't know what this is."

Looks like part of the mountain, or a buildup of ice because of wind. Certainly not a boat of any kind.

[Correa Neto]

It's to tell from a cropped photo, and me not being an image analyst, if the object in question is anomalous in comparison to the other things surrounding it. If so, it is probably worth it for the person interested in it to study it further, whether it is an ark or not.

The textures, "color", etc. are quite similar to those found in the terrain at the lower left corner of the picture, to wich it is also linked by a narrow "bridge". Both areas also seems to share similar elevations. Looks like the erosional remmant of a larger terrain, partially visible at the lower left corner of the image.

[T'ai Chi]

Calling a geologic feature an "anomaly" doesn't make it an "anomaly", and an "anomaly" is not equivalent to "Noah's Ark".


I agree. Glad no one said that "anomaly" means something other than what the word anomaly means. :)

My point was that if its features are oddly different from the features of things around it, it might be worth understanding what it is and why. Perhaps there's some man-made object, or perhaps an odd weathering process is at work?

[Iacchus]

It looks sort of like a Brazil nut to me.

[DSE]

My point was that if its features are oddly different from the features of things around it, it might be worth understanding what it is and why. Perhaps there's some man-made object, or perhaps an odd weathering process is at work?
Tai, I agree with you in spirit, but I think you'd have to do a lot better than this picture to merit any real interest. There is a long history of people finding "strange" structures they think are noah's ark that turn out to be completely normal. In fact, with all the variety, you'd expect some mountains structures to look a little like boats. I'm not saying don't ever investigate anything like this, but you have to admit this one has a very low likelihood of proving to be anything interesting. With only so much time and resources, it seems like it might be better to focus energy elsewhere.

I mean:

The story itself is extremely suspect
Even if true, the size is incorrect
Even if the size doesn't matter, it's not how one would expect a wooden ship to be preserved
Plus one would expect people to find many normal structures that looked boat-like in mountains if they were specifically looking for them

[TimmyBerry]

Does the ship look upside-down on this picture, or is it just me?

[ChristineR]

Re-reading this thread made me think of another possibility. Maybe this is just a ploy by some geologists to get some money and attention for their favorite geological analmoly. You'd have to be pretty naive to think this could be Noah's ark, even if you were a stauch literalist flood believer.

Which of course opens a whole new set of questions, moral, ethical, and scientific....