1
   

Ararat Anomaly

 
 
baddog1
 
Reply Tue 11 Dec, 2007 07:37 am
Does anyone have recent information regarding the Ararat Anomaly? Has the intelligence community declassified any additional information/photo's since 2003 or so?
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 10,379 • Replies: 127
No top replies

 
Wolf ODonnell
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 Dec, 2007 01:56 pm
Re: Ararat Anomaly
baddog1 wrote:
Does anyone have recent information regarding the Ararat Anomaly? Has the intelligence community declassified any additional information/photo's since 2003 or so?


No, not really. Why? You hoping it will confirm that it's Noah's Ark, despite the fact that even if it did exist, it wouldn't have survived? I mean, even Scott of the Antarctic's hut is being slowly digested by bacteria as we speak.
0 Replies
 
baddog1
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 Dec, 2007 02:48 pm
Re: Ararat Anomaly
Wolf_ODonnell wrote:

No, not really. Why? You hoping it will confirm that it's Noah's Ark, despite the fact that even if it did exist, it wouldn't have survived? I mean, even Scott of the Antarctic's hut is being slowly digested by bacteria as we speak.


Interesting your claim about no chance of survival in one sentence - then speaking of living bacteria in a similar environment the next.

I wonder why the mystery of keeping images of this area classified if there is nothing to consider.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 Dec, 2007 03:09 pm
explain "anomaly"? whats so anomalous about all this?
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 Dec, 2007 03:10 pm
Re: Ararat Anomaly
baddog1 wrote:
Interesting your claim about no chance of survival in one sentence - then speaking of living bacteria in a similar environment the next.


There's no issue there--first because the environment on Ararat does not even remotely resemble the environment of Antarctica near the south pole; second because bacteria have been found in hot springs where the water is above the boiling point, and beneath the ice of Antarctica. They are called extremophiles. Look them up sometime. You can start by clicking here. There is nothing unusual or extreme about the environment on the top of a mountain roughly 17,000 feet in elevation (actually a bit less).

Wolfe's comment about no chance of survival is about the remains of a wooden vessel on top of the mountain an alleged 5000 years or more later, not a comment about the survival of life. But then, fuzzy thinking is your strong suit, no?

I wonder why the mystery of keeping images of this area classified if there is nothing to consider.[/quote]

The area is not "classified." Some photographs taken by American aircraft and satellites were classified "secret" (and not even "top secret") in the period 1956 to 1992. That is not to be wondered at, as the mountain lies in the border region between Turkey--a NATO member--and what was once the Soviet Union. The alleged anomaly had been photographed many times since then, and the DIA (the Defense Intelligence Agency of the United States) has declare that their analysts consider it to be facades in glacial ice.

If you really think there is anything there, how about providing us a source?
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 Dec, 2007 03:14 pm
you can get Ikonos, SPOT, and several other satellite images that return to the area on a 13 hour frequency .
We have some satellites that are military in focus but the JApanese and other nations have all sorts of cameras scooting around up there. Your claim of "classified" is another batch of baddoggy doodoo.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 Dec, 2007 03:19 pm
Apophenia . . . just one more arrow in the quiver of Christian delusion.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 Dec, 2007 03:20 pm
Heres a couple of Bobble ScientistsCREATION MUSEUM
0 Replies
 
Wolf ODonnell
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 Dec, 2007 04:26 pm
Re: Ararat Anomaly
Setanta wrote:
baddog1 wrote:
Interesting your claim about no chance of survival in one sentence - then speaking of living bacteria in a similar environment the next.


There's no issue there--first because the environment on Ararat does not even remotely resemble the environment of Antarctica near the south pole; second because bacteria have been found in hot springs where the water is above the boiling point, and beneath the ice of Antarctica. They are called extremophiles. Look them up sometime. You can start by clicking here. There is nothing unusual or extreme about the environment on the top of a mountain roughly 17,000 feet in elevation (actually a bit less).

Wolfe's comment about no chance of survival is about the remains of a wooden vessel on top of the mountain an alleged 5000 years or more later, not a comment about the survival of life.


Thank you. At least somebody understands what I was talking about.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 Dec, 2007 04:34 pm
farmerman wrote:
Heres a couple of Bobble ScientistsCREATION MUSEUM


Gin'ril, you are an evil, recreant sinner, and you will go straight to Hell ! ! !










































We'll leave a light on for ya . . .
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 Dec, 2007 09:06 pm
Re: Ararat Anomaly
baddog1 wrote:
Does anyone have recent information regarding the Ararat Anomaly? Has the intelligence community declassified any additional information/photo's since 2003 or so?

The only Arafat anomaly worth reporting happened in Nov 2004...
http://www.joe-ks.com/archives_nov2004/ArafatAfterlife.jpg

Smile
0 Replies
 
Pauligirl
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 Dec, 2007 09:10 pm
Re: Ararat Anomaly
baddog1 wrote:
Does anyone have recent information regarding the Ararat Anomaly? Has the intelligence community declassified any additional information/photo's since 2003 or so?


http://www.space.com/news/060309_ark_update.html
http://www.livescience.com/strangenews/060905_noahs_ark.html
0 Replies
 
baddog1
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Dec, 2007 06:01 am
Re: Ararat Anomaly
Setanta wrote:

There's no issue there--first because the environment on Ararat does not even remotely resemble the environment of Antarctica near the south pole...


That's an idiotic statement set. Your sensibility seems to be deteriorating faster than wolfie thinks the Ark has.

Quote:
Wolfe's comment about no chance of survival is about the remains of a wooden vessel on top of the mountain an alleged 5000 years or more later, not a comment about the survival of life. But then, fuzzy thinking is your strong suit, no?


I figured wolf was headed there (or that one like you would come running to his rescue), but wanted to be sure. Wolf provided no evidence as to why remnants of the Ark would/could not have survived in the 'mild' environment - and you provided no evidence of this while coming to his aid. Are you positive that no remains of the wood used on the Ark could have survived the tropical environment atop the hill under any circumstance?

Quote:
The area is not "classified."


No one said this.

Quote:
Some photographs taken by American aircraft and satellites were classified "secret" (and not even "top secret") in the period 1956 to 1992. That is not to be wondered at, as the mountain lies in the border region between Turkey--a NATO member--and what was once the Soviet Union. The alleged anomaly had been photographed many times since then, and the DIA (the Defense Intelligence Agency of the United States) has declare that their analysts consider it to be facades in glacial ice.


Please provide evidence of your points here.

Quote:
If you really think there is anything there, how about providing us a source?


An idiotic question. Where did I make any such inference?
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Dec, 2007 06:21 am
baddog
Quote:
Wolf provided no evidence as to why remnants of the Ark would/could not have survived in the 'mild' environment

Wolf didnt start this stupid thread. You did . "Nobody has provided ANY evidence that

1there even is an ANOMALY

2That the ARK is sitting in a moraine field covered by snow

3All the other science-free bullshit that accompanies the ARk legend is out there


Its good fer the Bobble SCientists to sit on their respective asses and talk about the "possible existence of a Biblical artifact" yet never ever bother to go seek it out. That way they are spared the embarrassment of not finding anything should they go outside and look and they can, by inference, keep the story alive by putting some bogus burden of proof onto others who are too busy in the real world.

The burden of proof is on you, so better pack yer longies and get goin. Maybe the Creation Museum will fund it. After all, they have a Triceratops with a saddle made with a leather-craft sewing machine (obviously Adams technology was far more advanced than we originally considered), and all that science has been verified in the scientific literature, (I think)


You guys are always good for a laugh in this otherwise serious world.
0 Replies
 
baddog1
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Dec, 2007 10:02 am
farmerman wrote:
Wolf didnt start this stupid thread. You did .

The burden of proof is on you...


Since you brought up 'stupidity' - how do you deduce that the "burden of proof" is on me, when I asked these questions?:

Does anyone have recent information regarding the Ararat Anomaly? Has the intelligence community declassified any additional information/photo's since 2003 or so?

Stop with the Red Herrings fm.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Dec, 2007 12:36 pm
Re: Ararat Anomaly
baddog1 wrote:
Setanta wrote:
There's no issue there--first because the environment on Ararat does not even remotely resemble the environment of Antarctica near the south pole...


That's an idiotic statement set. Your sensibility seems to be deteriorating faster than wolfie thinks the Ark has.


Since you seem to be hot on the subject of evidence, provide some evidence that the environment on top of Ararat, a mountain of less than 17,000 feet elevation, is equivalent to the environment at the south pole, which is what Wolf's comment about Captain Scott means. Apparently, you are unaware that Captain Scott was an English explorer who tried to be the first man to reach the south pole, but failed when a Norwegian got there before him, and then he (Scott) died on the march back to his base camp.

What evidence to you have that the environment on top of Ararat is equivalent to the environment at the south pole?

Quote:
Quote:
Wolfe's comment about no chance of survival is about the remains of a wooden vessel on top of the mountain an alleged 5000 years or more later, not a comment about the survival of life. But then, fuzzy thinking is your strong suit, no?


I figured wolf was headed there (or that one like you would come running to his rescue), but wanted to be sure. Wolf provided no evidence as to why remnants of the Ark would/could not have survived in the 'mild' environment - and you provided no evidence of this while coming to his aid. Are you positive that no remains of the wood used on the Ark could have survived the tropical environment atop the hill under any circumstance?


http://shoutluton.com/attractions/images/strawman.jpg

(That's a straw man, in case the nickel didn't drop for you)

Neither Wolf nor i alleged that the environment atop Ararat is "mild," or "tropical." Your attempts to sneer are as pathetic as what passes for logic at your house.

To recap, since you either didn't get it, or are attempting to ignore it--Wolf's point is that Scott's wooden shack in Antarctica has rotted away, in a climate much harsher than that atop Ararat, and has done so in one century. Yet the "Noah's Ark" loonies want to believe that a wooden boat lying atop (allegedly) that mountain, is going to have survived for thousands of years. My point in providing a link about extremophiles was to point out that bacteria can survive in far harsher climates than one finds atop Ararat.

Quote:
Quote:
The area is not "classified."


No one said this.


I do beg your pardon. A handful of photographs taken by the United States Air Force in the period 1956-1992 were classified. By no means have all, or even a significant fraction of the photographs which have been taken of Ararat been classified--just a few photos by the legendarily paranoid United States Air Force. Of course, it's easy to cherry-pick what i've written, so as to isolate a portion and attempt to argue against it.

Quote:
Quote:
Some photographs taken by American aircraft and satellites were classified "secret" (and not even "top secret") in the period 1956 to 1992. That is not to be wondered at, as the mountain lies in the border region between Turkey--a NATO member--and what was once the Soviet Union. The alleged anomaly had been photographed many times since then, and the DIA (the Defense Intelligence Agency of the United States) has declare that their analysts consider it to be facades in glacial ice.


Please provide evidence of your points here.


Two points--one is that you have provided no evidence that there is an "anomaly" atop that mountain; two is that i asked you first--see below.

Quote:
Quote:
If you really think there is anything there, how about providing us a source?


An idiotic question. Where did I make any such inference?


I asked you if you think there is anything there--i did not state that i had inferred it, although one does wonder why you allege that there is an "anomaly" atop Ararat and ask questions about it, if you do not in fact believe that there is "something there."

At all events, as has been pointed out, it's your thread, and as well, i asked first--what evidence do you have that there is any sort of "anomaly" atop Ararat?
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Dec, 2007 01:47 pm
baddog
Quote:
Does anyone have recent information regarding the Ararat Anomaly



Which states . OK all you buckaroos, dispense with all yer logic and all that there information and just buy into a fact that there IS an Ararat Anomaly.

Deny as you will, its all on you BD. Im yearning to know all about this alleged mysterious thingy.
As I said before, you Bobble boys have it esy, you dont ever go looking for things that you post. Then you expect others to do your work for you. Dont be so simple minded.

Whatdya doin tomorrah there BD? wanna go on up to the Creation Museum?
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Dec, 2007 01:56 pm
They got them animatronic dinosaurs. The Billy Graham Museum ain't got **** that can compare with that--just a talkin' cow.

That was a great video, FM.
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Dec, 2007 02:09 pm
One can make much better arguments for the existence of UFOs than the existence of Noah's Ark. Not that that is necessarily saying very much, however for many years UFOs have been reported by commercial and military pilots in operation all over the world.

No such body of reliable observations exists for Noah's Ark.

Logically then, anyone believing in the existence of Noah's Ark based on "evidence" should believe in the existence of UFOs.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Dec, 2007 02:11 pm
I am fond of saying (and now i get to say it again) that i have not the least doubt that there are many people who see, or think they see, objects, or what they think are objects, which are flying, or which they think are flying, and which they are then and subsequently unable to identify.

Certainly there are unidentified flying objects. That don't mean there's any a them alien dudes hangin' out here.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

700 Inconsistencies in the Bible - Discussion by onevoice
Why do we deliberately fool ourselves? - Discussion by coincidence
Spirituality - Question by Miller
Oneness vs. Trinity - Discussion by Arella Mae
give you chills - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence for Evolution! - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence of God! - Discussion by Bartikus
One World Order?! - Discussion by Bartikus
God loves us all....!? - Discussion by Bartikus
The Preambles to Our States - Discussion by Charli
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Ararat Anomaly
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/28/2024 at 02:04:55