Ararat Anomaly

Where's your evidence for this emotion-based rhetoric?

Clearly the DIA does not know for sure what is up there and for whatever reason(s) - does not desire to find out.

Apparently BD, you've gone through your whole life without anyone doing you the favor of being honest with you about just how irrational the idea of magic is.

Science doesn't have to disprove ridiculous ideas before they can be dismissed, we do it all the time. We know there are no tooth faries, the leprechauns don't keep a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, a blue whale didn't fly over Boston last night on magical wings, there's no teapot orbiting pluto and all the animals of the earth didn't magically cram themselves onto a wooden boat in preparation for a magical flood which covered the earth.

There are dozens of ancient flood stories throughout history, Noah's story isn't even original, it's a copy of an older story. Yet you dismiss them all as fantasy, except yours. There have been countless magical events described by religions all over the world and throughout time, but you don't waste your time with them. Why? What makes the magic of Noah's story any better than the magic of muslim stories or mormon stories, or from the crackpot on the corner who says the sky is falling. The answer is easy, there's nothing different about it, nothing. The only reason you don't see it is because you're immersed in this cultural delusion.

If someone wants to believe in magic that's fine. But they really shouldn't be a bit surprised when rational people ridicule them for it. Ridiculous ideas deserve ridicule, that's where the word comes from.

More people with a good grip on reality should be less inclined to "play along" with irrational ideas. Otherwise we end up with a society full of adults who can't discriminate between reality and bullshit (and that can't be good).

Galileo, the Wright brothers, Newton and Pasteur were not laughed at. Stop making **** up. Galileo Galilei was condemned by the church because of his heliocentric astronomy, which was well established as the model that astronomers used in the 16th and 17th centuries. He was long an employee of the Venetian Republic and was warned by people in Venice not to take up residence in the Papal States, because the church had a grudge against him in particular. He may have been prosecuted by the church and put under house arrest, but his astronomy was consistent with the views of his day, nd nobody was laughing at him.

The Wright brothers were simply the first ones to successfully conduct a powered flight. They were not the first to attempt it, they were just the first ones to succeed. They certainly weren't laughing when they spent most of the rest of their lives suing others for patent infringement (unsuccessfully). Before they took even their first step on the road to a successfully heavier-than-air craft, others were attempting the same thing, they simply failed whereas the Wright brothers stepped in and succeeded.

Newton was the very idol of his age, and not just among the cognoscenti. Not only was he the most illustrious member of the Royal Society in his day, he was frequently consulted by the royal government on engineering and scientific matters, and in later life became the Warden of the Royal Mint. He was very popular in his day, and was considered to be an ornament of the English kingdom, whose international renown enhanced the reputation of the English. No one was laughing at him.

Louis Pasteur's work with a germ theory of medicine was not new, others had proposed it before him. His contribution was the nuts and bolts scientific work which demonstrated the existence of the organisms which caused diseases. His proposal for vaccination against smallpox using the dead organisms which caused cowpox was quickly adopted all over Europe, as was his heat method for preventing the contamination of fermented beverages; although it was not initially successful with beer and wine, when applied to milk, it created a revolution both in the dairy industry and in the nutritional health of the world's children. No one was laughing at him.

Don't make sh*t up, and don't shoot your mouth off about things of which you obviously know nothing.

Galileo, Wilbur & Orville Wright, Newton, Louis Pasteur... - all laughed at for their "ridiculous, irrational" ideas. And now the science community reveres their accomplishments.

Response:
Davis said he saw Mount Ararat (Agri Dagh) from Hamadan, and that they traveled to it in less than a day. But Ararat is 400 miles from Hamadan. Davis originally described his friends as Lourds, which do not live near the base of Ararat. (Davis later changed his story to call them Kurds, which do live around Ararat.) Davis described springs and caves on the mountain, which are rare on Ararat. Davis probably visited Kuh e Alvand, a mountain sixty miles west of Hamadan which locals believe to be the ark's landing spot (Crouse 1993).


From Davis's description, the ark was not prohibitively hard to reach, and many people knew its location. Even if its sacredness kept them from showing it to other Westerners, news of its exact location should have spread to Moslems. The ark could not so easily be kept secret.


Parts of Ed Davis's story are not credible. For example, he tells of edible food remaining after 8,000 years, yet all the wood is petrified. He has no corroboration -- no witnesses, photographs, or artifacts. He passed a polygraph test, but one with only six questions, and he showed unusual stress on the question, "Are you lying when you state that no one ever told you about the ark other than Abas and the Bible?" (Crouse 1993). Davis's story is consistent with someone who saw some fog-shrouded blocks and was told they were the ark.

When David Hannum coined "Theres a sucker born every minute", I believe he was being conservative

Still seeking some sort of validation spendi?