Page 1 of 6 12345 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 134

Thread: Noah's Ark Found in Turkey? Revealing God's Treasure Documentary

  1. #1
    Senior Member jude1:3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Posts
    367

    Default Noah's Ark Found in Turkey? Revealing God's Treasure Documentary


  2. #2
    Senior Member MichaellS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Notre Dame, IN
    Posts
    414

    Default

    .
    Finally, in one bite-sized vid, but maybe their are others. Would have been nice to have list of acclaimed expertise towards the end giving their vet and recommendation. Nice post.

    Mike.
    .

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    430

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MichaellS View Post
    .
    Finally, in one bite-sized vid, but maybe their are others. Would have been nice to have list of acclaimed expertise towards the end giving their vet and recommendation. Nice post.

    Mike.
    .
    video is no longer available and noah's ark has not been discovered yet and most likely never will
    magazine is still running, location as changed. contact us for the internet address

  4. #4
    Senior Member jude1:3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Posts
    367

    Default


  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    430

    Default

    again, Noah's ark has not been nor ever been found. Take it from someone who actually knows
    magazine is still running, location as changed. contact us for the internet address

  6. #6
    Senior Member jude1:3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Posts
    367

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DrDavidT View Post
    again, Noah's ark has not been nor ever been found. Take it from someone who actually knows


    Again, it has been found and there is the video

  7. #7
    Super Moderator alanmolstad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    8,581

    Default

    no...the ark has NOT been found1

    even the people that are said to have endorsed this idea mostly have back-tracked on it...Many who are quoted as being in support this idea did not and have been quoted in error.
    From the Forum RULES : "As you know, the Walter Martin website takes the position that Mormon theology is not Christian theology. Use of the term "LDS Christian" is inaccurate and misleading, and as such is not acceptable on this board."

  8. #8
    Senior Member jude1:3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Posts
    367

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by alanmolstad View Post
    no...the ark has NOT been found1

    even the people that are said to have endorsed this idea mostly have back-tracked on it...Many who are quoted as being in support this idea did not and have been quoted in error.

    Name the people.

  9. #9
    Super Moderator alanmolstad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    8,581

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jude1:3 View Post
    Name the people.
    I will be happy to.

    I did a google search and there are sites written by leading writersin this topic...they have went back and dug up the so-called proof that this conman was holding up as his proof, and it ALL turns out to be fake....

    ALL the talk about the ark of Genesis and the ark of the Moses...and all the other wild claims the guy made...

    all fake...

    you also find that the guy has had to remove things from the personal credits part of the books because they listed his schooling , and were also 'fake'.




    There are people that were supporting these ideas until they went over there and saw for themselves...then they changed their tune.

    There is a well known name that i will be posting on later tonight when I get home from work...



    Just as i wrote this post I did a fast google search and this came up first-
    http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post...a.aspx#Article
    Last edited by alanmolstad; 08-03-2016 at 05:28 AM.
    From the Forum RULES : "As you know, the Walter Martin website takes the position that Mormon theology is not Christian theology. Use of the term "LDS Christian" is inaccurate and misleading, and as such is not acceptable on this board."

  10. #10
    Super Moderator alanmolstad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    8,581

    Default

    the same guy claimed that petrified wood by the truck load was to be found at the Ark of Genesis site he claimed to have found.....

    This was all a con job.....
    From the Forum RULES : "As you know, the Walter Martin website takes the position that Mormon theology is not Christian theology. Use of the term "LDS Christian" is inaccurate and misleading, and as such is not acceptable on this board."

  11. #11
    Super Moderator alanmolstad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    8,581
    From the Forum RULES : "As you know, the Walter Martin website takes the position that Mormon theology is not Christian theology. Use of the term "LDS Christian" is inaccurate and misleading, and as such is not acceptable on this board."

  12. #12
    Senior Member jude1:3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Posts
    367

    Default

    So what were the names of the people?

  13. #13
    Senior Member jude1:3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Posts
    367

    Default


  14. #14
    Super Moderator alanmolstad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    8,581

    Default

    "Claims about this boat-shape were previously discussed in Creation12(4):16–19, September 1990. The site is properly known as the Durupinar site, named after the Turkish Army Captain who first saw the boat-shape on the aerial photograph and who was involved in the first expedition in 1960.
    Some more recently have called it the Akyayla site, after the region in which it is located.
    The site has been vigorously promoted by self-styled archaeologist and explorer Ron Wyatt since 1977, when he first visited Turkey and began investigations.

    Over the years, particularly in the mid-1980s, Wyatt repeatedly tried to interest other people in the site, such as former US astronaut Colonel James Irwin, and ICR scientist Dr John Morris.

    Neither of these men were convinced after on site inspections.

    In 1985 Wyatt was joined by former merchant marine officer David Fasold and geophysicist Dr John Baumgardner.

    Both men have since parted company with Wyatt, Fasold disagreeing with him over details, and Baumgardner, while originally being cautiously enthusiastic, is now adamant the site does not contain Noah’s Ark."


    https://answersingenesis.org/creatio...ng-ark-expose/
    From the Forum RULES : "As you know, the Walter Martin website takes the position that Mormon theology is not Christian theology. Use of the term "LDS Christian" is inaccurate and misleading, and as such is not acceptable on this board."

  15. #15
    Super Moderator alanmolstad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    8,581

    Default

    "Geophysicist Tom Fenner says, ‘I was surprised and dismayed to learn that Mr Wyatt was using my name as well as the name of Geophysical Survey Systems Inc. (GSSI) in order to lend credibility to his unsubstantiated claims concerning the so-called “Noah’s Ark site.”’ Fenner goes on to indicate that neither he nor GSSI believes the formation to be manmade. He writes, ‘In 1987 I performed an extensive GPR [ground-penetrating radar] study in an attempt to characterize any shallow subsurface features in the boat-shaped formation at the site… . A great deal of effort was put into repeating the radar measurements acquired in 1986 by Wyatt and Fasold… . After numerous attempts over a period of one and a half days we were unable to duplicate their radar records in any way…. I was never convinced the site was the remains of Noah’s Ark. In fact the more time I spent on the site, the more skeptical I became.’"

    https://answersingenesis.org/creatio...ng-ark-expose/
    From the Forum RULES : "As you know, the Walter Martin website takes the position that Mormon theology is not Christian theology. Use of the term "LDS Christian" is inaccurate and misleading, and as such is not acceptable on this board."

  16. #16
    Super Moderator alanmolstad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    8,581

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jude1:3 View Post



    "Trainloads of Petrified Wood?
    It is Alleged That

    ‘There are trainloads and boatloads of petrified wood out there and it is all in the boat structure.’ Furthermore, the prized exhibit Wyatt shows to visitors, and photographs of which are regularly displayed, is a sample of “petrified” wood identified as pecky cypress-removed from inside the “hull” in the presence of the Governor of Agri.’
    In Reality

    No trained scientist of the many who have visited the site has ever seen any sign of these ‘trainloads’ of petrified wood. Geologist Dr Bayraktutan has collected one or two small fragments of semi-petrified wood which in his opinion have flowed on to the site within the mud from elsewhere. He confirms that none of the regular rock types of the site are petrified wood. Not one of the other scientists (including geologists familiar with petrified wood) has ever once seen any. Yet Wyatt continues to show untrained people samples of what he claims is petrified wood from the site.

    His prize sample, reportedly dug up in the presence of the Governor of the Turkish province of Agri, is not only claimed to be petrified wood, but alleged to be ‘laminated’ and ‘deck timber’. Roberts too has made much of this sample, being photographed with it, and claiming that this ‘petrified laminated timber’ is of major significance, since the Ark was made of gopher wood which, he says, could mean laminated wood.

    Both Wyatt and Roberts claim support for the identification of this sample by citing Galbraith Laboratories of Tennessee, yet the laboratory assay certificate shows that they only analysed for three elements-calcium, iron and carbon-no basis at all for calling the sample petrified wood! When telephoned, the laboratory was adamant that they were not asked to give an opinion on what the object was and they were unable to do so.

    The only other supportive evidence revealed by Roberts privately was a typewritten statement claiming that the sample (which is said to have no growth rings*) had been ‘identified visually as pecky cypress by John Mackay’. That is all. No one should make such an identification without a microscope thin section which would show, if the sample really was petrified wood, the cellular wood structure. No such thin sectioning has been done, and when urged by Roberts’ group Ark Search to do so (after Creation Science Foundation pointed this out), Wyatt refused to submit the sample for such sectioning and proper scientific testing and assessment. (*Ark Search literature has a photo of one of Wyatt’s specimens of ‘petrified wood’ which, in contrast to the above mentioned, shows what look like growth lines. That specimen is also claimed to show a ‘tenon joint’. To our knowledge, there is a total absence of supportive documentation on that alleged find, which may explain why it is rarely mentioned, in stark contrast to the other.)

    A Christian who was researching these claims writes (in a document forming part of Ark Search’s ‘written evidence’) that when he was shown this ‘petrified laminated wood’ sample, Wyatt told him that he had had it analysed by Galbraith Laboratories and the tests indicated that it was silicate replacement (that is, the wood had been replaced by a silicon compound). This cannot be truthful, since the laboratory report, also in Ark Search’s possession, shows that silicon was not even analysed for by Galbraith! No future compliance by Wyatt to have the sample sectioned is feasible without the safeguard of eye-witnesses who are familiar with this so-called ‘laminated’ ‘pecky cypress’.

    On the other hand, there are lots of chunks of basalt on the site and buried in the surface mudflow material. Those people we know of with a trained eye who have seen this particular sample of Wyatt’s have all identified it as basalt. Furthermore, their testimony, plus photographic assessment and microscopic examination of basalt samples from the site, strongly suggest the alleged ‘petrified adhesive’ is actually calcite veining."

    https://answersingenesis.org/creatio...ng-ark-expose/
    From the Forum RULES : "As you know, the Walter Martin website takes the position that Mormon theology is not Christian theology. Use of the term "LDS Christian" is inaccurate and misleading, and as such is not acceptable on this board."

  17. #17
    Super Moderator alanmolstad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    8,581

    Default

    Pitch Found
    It is Alleged That

    Some pitch has been found (pitch was used to cover the inside and outside of the Ark’s wooden structure).
    In Reality

    This claim appears to come primarily from Roberts and Mackay. However, no sample has been openly produced and submitted for proper scientific analyses. The only scientific procedure that could verify it as being pitch would be a gas chromatographic analysis-the standard method used worldwide for studying the chemical composition of all organic carbon materials. Tar and bitumen, for example, are routinely identified in this way because gas chromatographic analyses reveal the presence of the ‘heavy’, long-chain carbon molecules that are the hallmark of these substances. Thus, until such analyses are performed on verified samples from the site, this claim cannot be taken at face value.


    https://answersingenesis.org/creatio...ng-ark-expose/
    From the Forum RULES : "As you know, the Walter Martin website takes the position that Mormon theology is not Christian theology. Use of the term "LDS Christian" is inaccurate and misleading, and as such is not acceptable on this board."

  18. #18
    Super Moderator alanmolstad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    8,581

    Default

    the guy also seems to be into what we call "Water - witching""
    From the Forum RULES : "As you know, the Walter Martin website takes the position that Mormon theology is not Christian theology. Use of the term "LDS Christian" is inaccurate and misleading, and as such is not acceptable on this board."

  19. #19
    Senior Member jude1:3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Posts
    367

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by alanmolstad View Post
    the guy also seems to be into what we call "Water - witching""
    What does that mean ?

  20. #20
    Super Moderator alanmolstad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    8,581

    Default

    Here it means you hold two bent wires and walk around with them...and they will cross when you are over water...

    It dates back to many magic things people believed in before science taught us about the world...

    In other words....it's magic!
    From the Forum RULES : "As you know, the Walter Martin website takes the position that Mormon theology is not Christian theology. Use of the term "LDS Christian" is inaccurate and misleading, and as such is not acceptable on this board."

  21. #21
    Super Moderator alanmolstad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    8,581

    Default

    If you want I could do a Google search. ..there are a few videos of guys who show it being done..

    It's kinda like what the Mormon Smith was doing to convince people he could find stuff
    From the Forum RULES : "As you know, the Walter Martin website takes the position that Mormon theology is not Christian theology. Use of the term "LDS Christian" is inaccurate and misleading, and as such is not acceptable on this board."

  22. #22
    Super Moderator alanmolstad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    8,581

    Default

    I'm on my phone so I'm not sure this link will work
    http://monkeysee.com/how-to-find-wat...s-and-bobbers/
    From the Forum RULES : "As you know, the Walter Martin website takes the position that Mormon theology is not Christian theology. Use of the term "LDS Christian" is inaccurate and misleading, and as such is not acceptable on this board."

  23. #23
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    430

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by alanmolstad View Post
    no...the ark has NOT been found1

    even the people that are said to have endorsed this idea mostly have back-tracked on it...Many who are quoted as being in support this idea did not and have been quoted in error.
    is he still on this? unbelievable. There are two reasons why we will not find the ark--one, its wood was used by Noah . his descendants for homes, farm use etc. and two, wood does not necessarily survive for 5000 years admist storms, earthquakes, hurricanes, fires and so on.

    To prove you have Noah's ark you must first figure out what is gopher wood in Noah's time and two, prove that it survived the wear and tear of time and people. Then who is to say that those who did not believe did not make a trip up the mountain in those early years after the flood and destroyed it in order to keep the the flood account from being proven true?
    magazine is still running, location as changed. contact us for the internet address

  24. #24
    Senior Member jude1:3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Posts
    367

    Default

    Pay no attention to the unbelievers and nay sayers that flat out refuse to prove and validate their credentials.

  25. #25
    Super Moderator alanmolstad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    8,581

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by alanmolstad View Post
    I'm on my phone so I'm not sure this link will work
    http://monkeysee.com/how-to-find-wat...s-and-bobbers/
    Although we may tend to laugh at the way they do this crap in the video, this actually is what the conman was doing to show his investors and supporters that the ark was real.

    Its so silly, but to the true believer this was seen as being a way to belive.

    And thats the thing with how a conman works, for they do things no logical person would believe, but when performed in front of a person that really wants to believe they are "Proof".

    It ranks right up there with and is simply another form of this -
    From the Forum RULES : "As you know, the Walter Martin website takes the position that Mormon theology is not Christian theology. Use of the term "LDS Christian" is inaccurate and misleading, and as such is not acceptable on this board."

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •