Who discovered noah's ark? Ron Wyatt or Ed Davis/George Hagopian?

reply to post by sneaglebob12


I think I figured out why the Israel Government may not want this found.

The raw translations of the Ancient Hebrew bible tell of the fact that the 'Supreme Ones' (who we know as The Watchers) were tasked with joining Nakha (Noah) aboard the Vessel.



So there may be something that may be found (within the vessel) that shows that God/Ruler of All and The Watchers/Supreme Ones were of Alien origin....

As far as I can grasp, The Annunaki created us, but against the will of the galactic council, and a flood was ordered to wipe out the human race.

I have never had a problem with a global flood, as there are worldwide accounts, however, my problem was with the ark itself. There is no way that a boat can hold 2 of every species..

..that is unless it was not the animals themselves..it was their DNA. Given in a golden box to Noah to look after. (The Annunaki being big believers of fate, it was in the lap of the gods so to speak as to wether everything survived).

2nd point is that Noah lived miles from any water and had no boat making skills, yet he constructed a boat the size of several football fields long with the help of only his family (8 in total) - 4 of which were women..and women at the time were home makers..not workers..so thats half your workforce gone already. The ark itself was more likely to be a biosphere or some form of alien craft that actually left the earth and was unaffected by the flooding.

LightAssassin is absolutely right, and the bible is coded and peppered with alien accounts that have been deliberately misinterpreted (i realise the irony in that statement). So people are misinformed and only realise a 'part truth'.

The Annunaki - "Those that came down from the heavens" (Angels). They were also giants compared to us.. The bible mentions giants on several occassions, Goliath, King Og..

I know it is slightly off track, but what clearly defines this hidden truth is a document called The Talmud of Jmmannuel. (Which is the real name of Jesus). He was the son of Gabriel. It tells of how Jmmannuel was "taken up by a metallic light for 40 days and 40 nights" - not that he just wandered off..

It also tells of how Jmmannuel survived the crucifixtion and left for India with his good friend Judas Iscariot.. the person who truly betrayed him was a pharisee called Judah Ihariot.

The person who translated the Talmud was a greek orthodox priest. Shortly after translation he was murdered along with his entire family.

Who discovered noah's ark? Ron Wyatt or Ed Davis/George Hagopian?,

None of them. There is no such thing as 'Noahs Ark'. It's a story ripped off from the ancient Summerians. it simply didn't happen. Oh .. a few major world floods have happened over the past hundreds of thousands of years ... but no 'Noahs Ark'.

Originally posted by jeramie
The flood happened 4,400 years ago.

That's impossible. There is NO WAY that a world wide flood happened 4,400 years ago that wiped out all of humanity except for a family of 8 who were floating on a boat around the area of modern day Turkey. Absolutely impossible genetically speaking. There are way too many humans - humans of various races no less- for everyone to have come from 3 human couples only 4,400 years ago.

Some years ago I wrote a book called “Giants On My World” and in this book I mentioned Noah being an antediluvian of giant proportions. This was long before computers and the vast research that the internet reveals today. About the only knowledge in my era were the libraries of limited books unless you were fortunate enough to live in one of the large cities with great libraries.

Everyone seems to have a favorite author when it comes to serious and even fictional tales and I guess I am no exception. My boyhood favorite was Mark Twain and some folks would be greatly surprised to learn that Mark wrote serious literature as well as Tom Sawyer tales. Mark Twain was one of the greatest writers in modern history and as we read his book, called “Innocents Abroad”, we read that he toured the world and wrote of his experiences with great humor and such wit that it astounds most men. As Mark Twain wrote of his trip into the Middle East we read the following and I quote his book Innocents Abroad and in his chapter XLII --

Quote “Back yonder, an hour's journey from here, we passed through an Arab village of stone dry-goods and boxes (they look like that) where Noah's tomb lies under lock and key. [Noah built the ark] Over these old hills and valleys the ark that contained all that was left of a vanished world once floated. I make no apology for detailing the above information. It will be news to some of my readers, at any rate. Noah's tomb is built of stone, and is covered with a long stone building. Bucksheeth let us in. The building had to be long, because the grave of the honored old navigator is two hundred and ten feet long itself. It is only about four feet high, though. He must have cast a shadow like a lightening rod. The proof that this is the genuine spot where Noah was buried can only be doubted by uncommonly incredulous people. The evidence is pretty straight. Shem, the son of Noah, was present at the burial and showed the place to his descendants, who transmitted the knowledge to their descendants, and the lineal descendants of those introduced themselves to us to-day.” Unquote

As far as I can gather this Arab settlement was called Mekeh overlooking the valley of Lebanon with the mountains of Hermon in the far distance. Now I do realize that Mark Twain can spin a yarn a mile long but in this case I believe he actually did see this place where the Arabs claim that Noah was buried. Of course this is not the place where the ark landed but if this is the grave of Noah then Noah was a giant near 200 feet tall or else this grave is just a memorial of some sort. But then what would give these Arabs the notion that Noah was that tall?

If Noah was indeed a giant antediluvian then it would change the entire measurements of the ark wouldn’t it? Now when the bible describes the measurements as being in cubits are these measurements in the cubits of the antediluvian Noah or the post flood era of diminished people? A cubit is a form of measurement and not fixed measurement. In other words it is a measurement which varies with culture and the average size of that culture. Even today we have the royal cubit and the standard cubit. To prove my point look at Deuteronomy 3:11 – “for only Og king of Bashan had been left of the remnant of the Rephaim; lo, his bedstead is a bedstead of iron; is it not in Rabbath of the sons of Ammon? nine cubits its length, and four cubits its breadth, by the cubit of a man.” Why would this be noted so strongly as “cubit of man?” The Jewish anthology claims that this bedstead was the crib of Qg and not the grown giant Og.

Text That's impossible. There is NO WAY that a world wide flood happened 4,400 years ago that wiped out all of humanity except for a family of 8 who were floating on a boat around the area of modern day Turkey. Absolutely impossible genetically speaking. There are way too many humans - humans of various races no less- for everyone to have come from 3 human couples only 4,400 years ago.

reply to post by FlyersFan


@ FlyersFan

I have said that many times and I still doubt a world flood at the same happening. The thing that really bogs my mind is that of the different races. The only logical solution that I can think of is that the Creator continued to create after He took a rest on the seventh day. That is if all of this is true. That seventh day is long past by now and I don't really know what day this is now. What if the Creator continued to create people after that seventh day? What if all this evolution stuff is actually continuous creating?

The reason I ask is that our modern science claims that they have established the fact that our entire universe is still expanding. If it is still expanding then don't you have to have a continued creation to fill that void that it creates in expansion? Also the fact that the universe is expanding into another void of some sort. In other words creation is still happening isn't it? If it is and if science is right then the Creator took a rest and is now continuing creation. If that is true then He could have created different races at different times. Kind of borders on insanity doesn't it?

Originally posted by Murgatroid

Originally posted by sneaglebob12
I'm also convinced that Ron Wyatt is for real, but like I said, why does it appear that there are 2 arks?

There are many analogies that might help explain it.

There are many Ark of the Covenants in various places and ALL of them claim to be real.

Only ONE has all of the obvious signs that show it to be the real thing.

There are MANY religions that ALL claim to be real.

Only ONE has the supernatural signs and miracles that PROVE it to be the real thing.

The "genuine" will ALWAYS attract the counterfeits.

The stealth agenda is to keep you away from the genuine.

No religion has any supernatural signs or miracles that have ever been proven to exist. EVER. show me one that can be supported with real, TESTABLE evidence and ill bow down before your ''god' in a heartbeat.


Either all religions are real, or none of them are, there is either one god, or no god.

Give me one REAL example of a an actual miracle, not just a claimed one, as i say they all are

Who discovered Noah's Ark?
No one.
How many animals did Noah have in The Ark?
None.
Gilgamesh fillgamesh.

www.youtube.com...

Instead of being "anchors," those huge stones with a hole through them could represent stabilizers. They could have been slung over each side of a hull for extra stability in extra-rough sea turbulence.

Originally posted by sneaglebob12
Who discovered noah's ark? Ron Wyatt or Ed Davis/George Hagopian?

Neither.

Noah's ark has never been discovered.

Hi,

i think that Ron Wyatt did discover the Ark of the Covenant... but not remnants of Noah's Ark.

i'm a Christian and have no problems believing that the account of Noah is factual by faith... however... the physical remnants of the ark may or may not exist. Personally given that there have been eyewitness accounts i tend towards the idea that there are still remnants or even whole portions of it preserved under the icecap.

i read the Ed Davis, and Hagopian accounts and did a bit of searching using Google Earth. Both of them describe a portion of the Ark sticking out of the ice cap, and located on a ledge above a gorge... with water flowing down... within a horseshoe or have circle shaped portion of the gorge. The wood of the ark itself being petrified, and with a system of ventilation holes running down the length of the top.

i think (best guess) the remnants are located just above where a section of the ice cap comes down to the 13,500 level... the horseshoe area that Davis/Hagopian mention is probably covered with ice, and only visible when the ice melts on the hottest years, receding and exposing that horseshoe shaped area. That is where just about all the sightings have been.

After going through Google Earth images i did find an interesting object - it represents my best guess as to where the ark is. Please note the circled in red squarish object jutting out from the ice on this year - on other years its covered with ice and cannot be seen on Google Earth). It is a squarish object about 75-80 foot wide.

here is a link to it (with coords) that i saved off to my dropbox account from Google Earth:

www.dropbox.com...

or the pic:



It might just be a rock formation but i find it interesting and wonder what others think of it.

Its at the top portion of Ahora Gorge... i went through some of the photos that expeditions have taken of that spot at the top of Ahora Gorge and inevitably all of them are filled up with ice (at the time the photos were taken)... so who knows what the object is?

reply to post by rvborgh

Latitude and longitude co-ordinates would be more helpful here so we can zoom in and have a look ourselves.Also viewing the images taken on different dates can sometimes reveal more detail.

39 42' 52" N 44 18' 24" E

Click on historical imagery, and go back to 7/29/2005 at that spot and let me know what you think of the square object... thanks. You'll want to re-orient the map such that you are looking S (ie S at top and N at bottom) to "see" it better for some reason.

reply to post by Imagewerx

reply to post by rvborgh

I see a vertical rock face about 30 meters across and casting a shadow about 5 meters from it.It's been a VERY hard day at work and my brain will spontaneously combust if I try to work out how tall it is from the shadow.
Sorry but that's all I see,rock on top of rock surrounded by more rock but fractured in an entirely natural way.

I get an altitude of 4150 meters,which is about 13,600 feet above mean sea level.There is just no way possible that any sort of boat could ever be that high above sea level,bearing in mind that we're 200 miles from the nearest coastline and I doubt if the coast line has changed all that much in the last 5000 years or so.Even the more popular site near Durupinar with the visitor centre is at about 6000 feet AMSL,and again there is no actual geological evidence that the entire planet (or even just that part of the world) was covered with water to a depth of miles above it's normal level.Also there just isn't and never has been enough water in the world to account for this,even if all the ice in the world melted,the sea level would only ever increase globally by about 250 feet at the most.

There have been a few "discoveries" where you're looking and none of them have been proven to be the remains of wooden boats,in fact the famous one was admitted (or proven) to be a fake.The one lower down that shows what appears to be the shape of a boat I would guess at a man made fake,but one that was done hundreds of years ago.Although a lot of people say it's just a natural geological formation,I don't see that sort of symmetry on that sort of scale anywhere else in nature?

At present 71% of Earth's surface area is water... now if the planet was slightly smaller (less than a 8-9 km in diameter either way, a miniscule percentage of the current diameter)... we'd be a water world... if just slightly larger, we'd have nothing but small inland lakes... frankly, i find it interesting that we have exactly the quantity of water we do to have both oceans, and an appreciable amount of land at all... rather than just one or the other... what are the chances of that?

If the Ark still exists... its probably best if it were not found at this point.... the proportion of the controlling elements of human society that have absolutely rejected the Judeo Christian worldview has gotten to great for it to be accepted as truth, and for worldviews to be revised... for this reason it would likely be bombed to oblivion.

reply to post by Imagewerx

rvborgh
At present 71% of Earth's surface area is water... now if the planet was slightly smaller (less than a 8-9 km in diameter either way, a miniscule percentage of the current diameter)... we'd be a water world... if just slightly larger, we'd have nothing but small inland lakes... frankly, i find it interesting that we have exactly the quantity of water we do to have both oceans, and an appreciable amount of land at all... rather than just one or the other... what are the chances of that?

reply to post by Imagewerx

 

But the world isn't and never has been 8-9 km smaller in diameter than it is now,so it's a moot point.The story claims 40 days and 40 nights of rain,there would need to be enough water on the surface of our planet to evaporate,drift up into the sky,condense into ice crystals and then come back down again as rain when the conditions are right.As the there was never this much water on earth to start with,there could never have been this much afterwards.
As to what the chance is,about the same as when nature gets to work and creates the perfect balance IT needs to work properly.

rvborgh

If the Ark still exists... its probably best if it were not found at this point.... the proportion of the controlling elements of human society that have absolutely rejected the Judeo Christian worldview has gotten to great for it to be accepted as truth, and for worldviews to be revised... for this reason it would likely be bombed to oblivion.

reply to post by Imagewerx

 

It never existed in the first place,or at least not as the bible would have us believe.

Here's what I believe:
The Bible.

If it says the ark landed on Mt. Ararat, then that's where it landed. If Ron is the only one, between the two, who found an ark-sized object under the earth on the very mountain the Bible claims it landed on, then he found the ark.

Secondly, debating whether or not the conditions on the earth at the time were supporting enough for a super-massive flood to take place is void when dealing with a Creator who created it. If God created the heavens and the earth, what makes you think He's incapable of generating enough water to consume the earth, and then get rid of the excess? That argument really makes no sense at all. There's too much geographic evidence that points to there being a world-wide flood.

This second point goes hand-in-hand with those arguing that "there's no way" there was enough room on the ark for two of every species. Wrong again: you're dealing with a Creator who created everything; do you think He's soo ignorant that He doesn't know how big a boat needs to be to hold two of every species? He knows the very number of hairs on your head, how could he not know exactly what was needed to carry, and support, a specific amount of creatures? This is more bizarre than stating there's no way x amount of planets can orbit around one giant fireball and possibly create the perfect living ecosystem by accident.

Third, if evolution is "it", then how come nothing evolved to survive zero gravity? We have beetles on our planet that can survive liquid magma and being frozen in ice, yet there're zero creatures that habitate the empty space outside our atmosphere, or within the atmosphere of other planets in our own galaxy? That doesn't make sense. If evolution is correct, then we have to take into consideration that there's no way creatures only currently exist on just one of these planets.

Fourth, in the case for evoltion, there's been ongoing testing of fruit-flies for the last 100 years: a fly that generally only lives a life-span of about 50 days. Let's calculate this: In more than 100 years = 36,500 days / 50 = 730 generations of fruit flies, there has been 0 signs of evolution. The scientists testing these flies are actually being beginning to self-mutate the flies genetics in order to try and jump-start evolution, but it's still not working. The greatest grandson has the exact same genetic structure as the greatest parental pair. The results are conclusive: The fruit fly is still a fruit fly. www.icr.org... n/

a reply to: Asatra

Except there's no real empirical scientific evidence to prove that god exists and could possibly have done any of this is there?

a reply to: Asatra

If you are going to invoke a miracle, why bother with a boat?