Posted on 03/09/2006 11:30:41 PM PST by Tim Long
Digital image of 'Ararat Anomaly' has researchers taking closer look
A new, high-resolution digital image of what has become known as the "Ararat Anomaly" is reigniting interest in the hunt for Noah's Ark.
Satellite image of 'Ararat Anomaly,' taken by DigitalGlobe's QuickBird Satellite in 2003 and now made public for the first time (courtesy: DigitalGlobe)
The location of the anomaly on the northwest corner of Mt. Ararat in eastern Turkey has been under investigation from afar by ark hunters for years, but it has remained unexplored, with the government of Turkey not granting any scientific expedition permission to explore on site.
But the detail revealed by the new photo from DigitalGlobe's QuickBird satellite has a man at the helm of the probe excited once again.
"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," Porcher Taylor, an associate professor in paralegal studies at the University of Richmond, told Space.com.
For more than three decades, Taylor has been a national security analyst, and has also served as a senior associate for five years at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in Washington, D.C.
"I'm calling this my satellite archaeology project," Taylor said.
Space.com reports the project has been combining the photographic resources of QuickBird with GeoEye's Ikonos spacecraft, Canada's Radarsat 1, as well as declassified aerial and satellite images snapped by U.S. intelligence agencies.
While it's quite possible the item of interest could simply be a natural ridge of rock, snow and ice, Taylor says there's also a chance it could be something manmade.
"I had no preconceived notions or agendas when I began this in 1993 as to what I was looking for," he said. "I maintain that if it is the remains of something manmade and potentially nautical, then it's potentially something of biblical proportions."
The anomaly remains ensconced in glacial ice at an altitude of 15,300 feet, and Taylor says the photos suggest it's length-to-width ratio is close to 6:1, as indicated in the Book of Genesis.
The U.S. Air Force took the first photographs of the Mt. Ararat site in 1949. The images allegedly revealed what seemed to be a structure covered by ice, but were held for years in a confidential file labeled "Ararat Anomaly."
The new image was actually taken in 2003, but has never been revealed to the public until now.
Arking up the wrong tree?
Meanwhile, there are others who believe Noah's Ark has already been found, and tourists can actually visit it on a mountain next to Ararat.
Some believe this is Noah's Ark, already found on a mountain next to Mt. Ararat (courtesy: wyattmuseum.com)
The late Ron Wyatt, whose Tennessee-based foundation, Wyatt Archaeological Research, purported the ark has already been found at Dogubayazit, Turkey, some 12-15 miles from Ararat, noting Genesis states the ark rested "upon the mountains of Ararat," not mountain.
Is this a hair from a large cat aboard Noah's Ark? (photo: Richard Rives, wyattmuseum.com)
Wyatt's website is filled with on-location photographs and charts promoting its case with physical evidence including radar scans of bulkheads on the alleged vessel, deck timber and iron rivets, large "drogue" stones which are thought to have acted as types of anchors, and even some animal hair inside, possibly from a large cat like a lion or tiger.
A flood of doubt
However, there's been no shortage of critics from both scientific and Christian circles who think the Dogubayazit site is erroneous.
Lorence Collins, a retired geology professor from California State University, Northridge, joined the late David Fasold, a one-time proponent of the Wyatt site, in writing a scientific summary claiming the location is "bogus."
"Evidence from microscopic studies and photo analyses demonstrates that the supposed Ark near Dogubayazit is a completely natural rock formation," said the 1996 paper published in the Journal of Geoscience Education. "It cannot have been Noah's Ark nor even a man-made model. It is understandable why early investigators falsely identified it."
The Answers in Genesis website provides an in-depth report attempting to debunk any validity the Dogubayazit site has, and concludes by stating:
"[A]s Christians we need to always exercise due care when claims are made, no matter who makes them, and any claims must always be subjected to the most rigorous scientific scrutiny. If that had happened here, and particularly if the scientific surveys conducted by highly qualified professionals using sophisticated instruments had been more widely publicized and their results taken note of, then these claims would never have received the widespread credence that they have."
Officials with Wyatt Archaeological Research remain unfazed in the face of such criticism.
"The site ... is actually something that you can look at. Not some made up story that no one is quite able to reach but something that is really there," said president Richard Rives. "It is a 'boat-shaped object' composed of material containing organic carbon, which is what is found in petrified wood. ...
"While there is more research that needs to be done at the site, there is a substantial amount of evidence that would indicate that the Wyatt site is not a natural object. ...
"Today, everyone wants to tell us how to think. We, at Wyatt Archaeological Research, do not do that. We just present the evidence that we have and let each individual make his own decision."
In both the Old and New Testaments, the Bible speaks of Noah and the ark, and Jesus Christ and the apostles Paul and Peter all make reference to Noah's flood as an actual historical event.
'Noah's Ark' by Pennsylvania artist Edward Hicks, 1846
According to Genesis, Noah was a righteous man who was instructed by God to construct a large vessel to hold his family and many species of animals, as a massive deluge was coming to purify the world which had become corrupt.
Genesis 6:5 states: "And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually."
Noah was told by God to take aboard seven pairs of each of the "clean" animals – that is to say, those permissible to eat – and two each of the "unclean" variety. (Gen. 7:2)
Though the Bible says it rained for 40 days and 40 nights, it also mentions "the waters prevailed upon the earth a hundred and fifty days."
The ark then "rested" upon the mountains of Ararat, but it was still months before Noah and his family – his wife, his three sons and the sons' wives – were able to leave the ark and begin replenishing the world.
"and definitely as far back as when "Lucy" (Not Desi's Lucy) first walked upright, mainly in meteorites. "
I've never heard of this "Lucy walking upright in meteorites" theory. I think you are referring to the Beatles song - "Lucy in the sky with diamonds".
ampu
The Genesis account must be missing some verses where Noah swung by Mount Shrimponthebarbie and let the kangaroos, koalas, and platypusses off.
Then he must have swung by Antarctica to let the penguins off before stopping by North America to let the bison off.
Clearly some verses are missing.
"What, they ask, will be the effect of substituting many mutations through the herd simultaneously, rather than sequentially as in the example. Surely that will save... As it turns out, it won’t"
Do you have the information handy to elaborate?
It seems likely to me that many things would be happening simultaneously. That could complicate analysis to a vast degree. For example, what if individuals had both superior and inferior traits? Might selection remove the superior traits forever? Let's give the evolution hypothesis the full benefit of the doubt and see how things turn out. If selection is advancing several new traits simultaneously, the time required for evolution to take place should be shortened. I would be interested in seeing the result of mathematical analysis.
Thanks for the post.
LOL!! Sure I did!
Did I have x-ray vision and wings? Please tell me I had wings!
You had a tail.
I was intrigued by this comment, so to make sure, I looked back at my baby pictures and checked for a tail. You're out of luck, no tail.
Actually, it was 2 of every unclean animals, and 7 of all clean animals...what God deemed as food for humans and what he did not. This doesn't neccessarily translate to wild and domesticated. For example, deer are clean animals, but wild. Pigs are unclean animals, but generally considered domesticated.
And the bible speaks about "kinds". For example, wolves, coyotes and dogs are all of one kind. He would only have had to have one representative. Many animals would not have needed to be on the ark, such as aquatic animals, fish, etc.
So, are you saying that poodles and wolves, Great Danes and chihuahuas all had a single common ancestor 4,000 years ago? And that freshwater and saltwater fish all enjoyed the same environment for a year?
And also God said he would never again flood the entire earth so that all flesh is destroyed Gen 9:11 and we see localized flooding everywhere on earth.
Another "answer from Genesis."
Yes on point one, no on point two.
LOL!!
Honestly that was funny.
Yes on point one, no on point two.
How did the common ancestor speciate into wolves, coyotes etc.? Was it by macroevolution?
Most plants can't survive being submerged for months, especially if they're covered by sediment. Salty water makes it even worse.
Did Noah load seeds of every plant on the ark, and what about those plants that don't reproduce using seeds?
How did he manage to get plant life restarted on every continent? I don't quite see how he was able to start grasses in Kansas when the ark came to rest 15,000 feet up on a mountain in Turkey.
Doug, how did all the marsupials from Australia get to Noah, survive without their native foods, and get back to Australia?
Add in about 50,000 other species from all over the globe.
Its a story. If it were true we could replicate it. Go ahead, build an ark that can hold 2 of each animal and sail it for a while, using the tech of the day. Then get back to me on how well it went.
I want to know how he got the eucaylptus trees back growing so fast so they could feed the koalas! How did the carnivores eat when there were no plants for the plant eating animals to eat?
When you try to apply even the tiniest bit of logic to the ark story, the crevos show their true colors. They duck, dodge, and make God into a magician that just made it happen. And they are happy with that.
Sigh....
Typical dodge by a evolutionist.
Do you understand the power of God? Or do you just live in a world of ignorance where you can just plug in "It Evolved" to cover every mystery of the world. How sad that you reject the power of God around you and put your trust in fossils and half baked "scientific" theories. Evolution is one big fable written by Godless fools of the time. Life didn't evolve it was created.
Do you understand the scientific method?
Yes I do, that's why I reject evolution.
Noah's Flood can't survive even the most simplistic of reality checks.
It can't even survive a theological test. If Noah's Flood was meant to destroy evil in the world, it was an utter failure.
Not a dodge.
I want you to prove the ark story.
Come up with answers for me, how did the koala and sloth get back to Australia and S. America?
How did the reptiles survive being in the snow of Mt. Ararat?
What did the herbivores eat at the top of the mountain? How did they get the strength to get down and not eat for months while plants were regrowing?
How did the right plants regrow in the same places?
Answers!
You have none, just your fables. You don't have the brains to try to understand the universe, you need an easy, sloppy answer so you don't have to think further.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.