Russian Scientists Say No Noah’s Arc on Mount Ararat

What were thought to be the remains of Noah’s Arc on Mount Ararat in modern-day Turkey were discovered to be natural formations by a group of Russian scientists.

Story

This expedition occurred last year. They are now saying that there are absolutely no artifacts from a ship or boat. Everything seen from the satellite images were cause by volcanic activity. I guess we can put that one to rest now.

Actually, a number of scientists and others have said exactly the same thing. This still doesn't prevent hucksters from getting others to invest in expeditions to Mt. Ararat.

Wow, I did not know that a country which places an emphasis on being an athesitic state, would be the virtue of truth. If the Russian found something, I would not expect them to announce it to the world. For years, Russia and the old soviet union has cast a pale over anything religious. If they came out and said, we found this biblical thing, it would make them look like fools by stating that God does not exist. They have backed themselves into a corner and can't get out of it. It does not surprise me that the Russians would say nothing is there. let me see the information from Italy or the Israel, and then I might believe it.

So is this all russians that are liars or just their government and scientists?

jrsdls says:

"Wow, I did not know that a country which places an emphasis on being an athesitic state, would be the virtue of truth."

What does being a country placing "an emphasis on atheism" have to do wioth what they found or didn't find? Are we supposed to believe someone based on their religious beliefs?

And besides, Russia is not atheistic; since the fall of the old USSR, the number of religionists has risen dramatically.

"If the Russian found something, I would not expect them to announce it to the world."

So far, though, no one, religious or otherwise, has come up with any evidence for an Ark on the top of Mt. Ararat. I think that's the key bit of information here.

"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"

Correct. Absence of evidence is . . . absence of evidence. And that absence of evidence is exactly what you have here.

I have a question. Why did Turkey refuse others who requested that they be allowed to try and find the Ark on several occasions, yet they allowed the Russians to do so?

Smells kind of fishy if you ask me.

Link to National Geographic Story

The Turkish government refused to grant the explorers permission to climb the mountain. Soon, the mission itself was put on ice.

This is another article about another team trying to go to Ararat. Seems they had the money, but the Turks said, “NO!”

Edit to fix quote

[edit on 3/30/05 by NoPhobos]

Originally posted by shots
I have a question. Why did Turkey refuse others who requested that they be allowed to try and find the Ark on several occasions, yet they allowed the Russians to do so?

Smells kind of fishy if you ask me.

I know they denied alot of request because they claim the area can be dangerous. It was suppose to area that was frequented by rebel factions or something.

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
I know they denied alot of request because they claim the area can be dangerous. It was suppose to area that was frequented by rebel factions or something.

They stated in the link I provided that the area was a “military zone,” and several articles say that the North slope is quite dangerous. That shouldn’t be a deciding factor for serious mountain climbers, though. Maybe the officials didn’t think the adventurers were up to snuff.

the simple idea that they would deny all but one nation's group access throws up red flags for me, and if you have a working brain it should for you too. so who cares if the area is 'dangerous', taking a deep breath can be dangerous for you in our day and age. to put it bluntly, it sounds like someone is hiding something. ark or no.

McGivern may have been more interested in generating publicity than mounting a serious search, critics now suggest. By making an early announcement, he may have tried to persuade the Turkish government into granting him a permit. Few expeditions have actually obtained clearance to climb Mount Ararat, which is located in a military zone.

Arslan (who was chosen to be the team leader) was involved in a 1993 documentary, aired on CBS television, which claimed to have found the ark. Some of the evidence presented in that documentary turned out to be a hoax, raising concerns about Arslan's testimony.

Seems the Turks didn’t want the 50 trip veteran to run the show.

Why would Turkey allow russians up there?
Uhm..weapons and defense contracts maybe?
Whats so suspicious about that?

its right in the pkk zone so its rather dangerous.

heres a site that supports the idea that noah's ark is there......and yes there are pictures to support the claim, as well as writing.

Noah's Ark

And they will never find it. There was no Noahs ark, because there was no Noah. His whole story is overtaken from ancient babylonian myths.

Fastest-Forming Fossils On Earth!

Originally posted by Joshm2u
heres a site that supports the idea that noah's ark is there......and yes there are pictures to support the claim, as well as writing.

Noah's Ark

Thanks for providing the link. The site is very interesting and develops the story nicely with plenty of cool photographs.

It also has led me to conclude that, as interesting as the site Ron Wyatt discovered is, it probably isn't the resting place of Noah's Ark.

The problem stems from the “fossils” found at the site -- claimed to be of wood and even a metal “rivet”.

Fossils take a very long time to form, and only rarely form in the kind of volcanic substrate depicted by Wyatt. The transition from organic to inorganic is by no means an overnight phenomenon, and I have seen no credible evidence to suggest otherwise.

While there are a lot of unanswered questions about the evidence presented by the site -- which is indisputably interesting, ark or no ark -- the nature of the “fossils” is carefully examined by Wyatt, but seemingly selectively.

For example, he chose not to measure organic carbon content directly, but used a subtraction method instead. Why? There are other oddities like that, but for the sake of argument, they can be excused.

That's because even if we accept as true Wyatt's claims that he found fossils from Noah's Ark, more questions are raised than answered.

An Apparently Self-Discrediting Story

Without launching into a dissertation, I'll get to the heart of the matter.

If what Wyatt is suggesting is true, and what he found on Mt. Ararat was indeed Noah's Ark, then Noah lived much, much longer ago than the bible indicates -- unless someone can explain how wood can completely fossilize in less than 6000 years.

If Noah really did live long enough ago to leave those sorts of fossils behind, that fact alone throws a major monkey wrench into the very same account we rely on to even speculate that there ever was a “Noah's Ark”, because all the events surrounding it would be severely and probably unrecoverably skewed on the biblical timeline.

I don't know one way or the other about whether Noah's Ark actually existed or not, and I am willing to leave that as an open question, but based on the evidence presented, I don't think Ron Wyatt found it, because his story -- even if taken completely at face value -- simply doesn't add up.

From Russia With Skepticism

As for the Russians and all that jazz, I really can't say much, other than that I would love to see the details of their findings -- especially photographs, but also the material analyses.

Maybe there really is some sort of conspiracy behind their mission or whatever. I'm not in a position to know.

However, if they did indeed carefully examine the same location Ron Wyatt illustrates on his website, I'm pretty sure they would have concluded the same thing that I have: there's no ark there.

Of course, I could be misunderstanding something, or be incorrect about fossil formation, or be jumping to the wrong conclusion or whatever. It wouldn't be the first time, to be sure.

But if the remains of Noah's Ark really are on Mount Ararat, I don't think that's where they are.

The story in the bible:
Genesis 8
1 But God remembered Noah and all the wild animals and the livestock that were with him in the ark, and he sent a wind over the earth, and the waters receded. 2 Now the springs of the deep and the floodgates of the heavens had been closed, and the rain had stopped falling from the sky. 3 The water receded steadily from the earth. At the end of the hundred and fifty days the water had gone down, 4 and on the seventeenth day of the seventh month the ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat. 5 The waters continued to recede until the tenth month, and on the first day of the tenth month the tops of the mountains became visible.
Almost unbeleivable that even now today people believe that kind of silly
fairy tales and organise expeditions to search for the remains of that ark
and that on a very high mountain like Mount Ararat:crazy people!
www.noahsarksearch.com...
Baloria

Next week I am going to ask for sponsorship to locate the site of the Giant's Bean Stalk. After all, there are huge trees in California that grow to almost 300 feet tall, and we all know giants existed in some form or other so why not find the magical bean stalk and go get the treasure!

The following month we will set off to recover the Leprechauns Gold from the Rainbows.

thats good for you buddy, hope you have a wonderful time doing those things.

To my knowlege the site of Noahs Ark mentioned in the article credited to Ron Wyatt was discovered by a fellow in marine salvage named David Fashold. As I recall Ron Wyatt was brought in later to help with exploration.
The Russians would have huge problems with the verification of this site as the real site of Noah's Ark politcally and socially ..even today as correctly stated by some of the postings on this board. What is not said is that if this site were the actual site of Noah's Ark..secular humanists here in the west would have a huge problem socially and politically also. This will never be allowed. Thier whole doctrine is based on the religious belief that humans and human values are the ultimate reality in everything.
Another footnote to these postings on this board....why would the ark be way up high on the mountain. I've often wondered how many of the animals would survive a trek down the mountain from such altitude??? Remember, the loss of any of the animals ..male or female ..would doom the species.??? A site lower down on the mountain close to the plains would be more suitable.
Also the whole mountain range is called Ararat..in this area..not just this one mountain. This is not known by most peoples. The biblical account says the mountains plural of Ararat, not just the mountain of Ararat!!
One more thing not known by most peoples in the west...because of the news blackout on this story. The Turkish government has built a road and a visitors center to this site and it is a major tourist draw in addition to a money making venture.
I believe David Fashold has written a book on this titled "The Ark of Noah"
Orangetom