Pattern of metal at the Durupinar site

[Astero...@yahoo.com]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZR8LffnS3rE

The people who claim that a pattern of metal doesn't exist there, that it's all random, have never seen this video and have never taken detector to the site and marked them off with ribbons. The fact of the matter is, the pattern does exist. It's there. I don't have to argue it, it's there and it's proven.

[Ted]

What's the Durupinar site?

[Astero...@yahoo.com]

Considered to be the Noah's Ark. See it here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i7iycpe16V0

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Sun, 28 May 2017 22:54:46 +0000 (UTC), Ted <stree...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Where some loonies imagine the ark has been found.

[Astero...@yahoo.com]

What on site investigation have you done?

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Sun, 28 May 2017 23:43:27 +0000 (UTC), Ted <stree...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>Thanks Christopher. Poor psychotic Asteroid7. It's kinda sad.

He believes a con artist called Ron Wyatt who "found" all sorts of
Biblical remains, not just the ark, including iron chariot wheels in
the Red Sea which "proves" the Exodus story.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Wyatt

[Vincent Maycock]

On Sun, 28 May 2017 15:18:17 -0700 (PDT), Astero...@yahoo.com
wrote:

>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZR8LffnS3rE
>
>The people who claim that a pattern of metal doesn't exist there, that it's all random, have never seen this video and have never taken detector to the site and marked them off with ribbons.

Have you done that? If so, where's your own video? ... (not a video
of, say, John Baumgardner walking around at random -- someone who, by
the way no longer believes it's the ark)?

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Sun, 28 May 2017 23:58:24 +0000 (UTC), Ted <stree...@gmail.com>

>Someone mentioned earlier that he'd been posting here for 20 years?

Here's his alt.atheism kooks list entry , as updated in 1998...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Wyatt

[Mitchell Holman]

Astero...@yahoo.com wrote in
news:d2fe87aa-3757-44c5...@googlegroups.com:

.....by kooks everywhere........

[Yap Honghor]

On Monday, May 29, 2017 at 6:18:19 AM UTC+8, Astero...@yahoo.com wrote:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZR8LffnS3rE
>
> The people who claim that a pattern of metal doesn't exist there, that it's all random, have never seen this video and have never taken detector to the site and marked them off with ribbons. The fact of the matter is, the pattern does exist. It's there. I don't have to argue it, it's there and it's proven.

What pattern of metal when the ark was suppose to be wood???
Even metal would have rusted away for a few hundred years already on the surface of the earth....

[Marvin Sebourn]

On Sunday, May 28, 2017 at 5:18:19 PM UTC-5, Astero...@yahoo.com wrote:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZR8LffnS3rE
>
> The people who claim that a pattern of metal doesn't exist there, that it's all random, have never seen this video and have never taken detector to the site and marked them off with ribbons. The fact of the matter is, the pattern does exist. It's there. I don't have to argue it, it's there and it's proven.

Nope. Why not read the view of the Creationist organization Answers in Genesis, concerning Wyatt and his Ark claims, and Wyatt in general? An excellent refutation, well-reasoned.

https://answersingenesis.org/creationism/arguments-to-avoid/special-report-amazing-ark-expose/

http://bit.ly/2qr7oe1

Marvin Sebourn
osugeo...@aol.com

[Siri Cruise]

In article <fb02fb7f-5310-4e3e...@googlegroups.com>,

Marvin Sebourn <osugeo...@aol.com> wrote:

> On Sunday, May 28, 2017 at 5:18:19 PM UTC-5, Astero...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZR8LffnS3rE
> >
> > The people who claim that a pattern of metal doesn't exist there, that it's
> > all random, have never seen this video and have never taken detector to the
> > site and marked them off with ribbons. The fact of the matter is, the
> > pattern does exist. It's there. I don't have to argue it, it's there and
> > it's proven.
>
> Nope. Why not read the view of the Creationist organization Answers in
> Genesis, concerning Wyatt and his Ark claims, and Wyatt in general? An
> excellent refutation, well-reasoned.

Humans are excellent at detecting complex patterns. Even in data known to be
random.

--
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted. @
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' /|\
Free the Amos Yee one. This post / \
Yeah, too bad about your so-called life. Ha-ha. insults Islam. Mohammed

[Astero...@yahoo.com]

On Sunday, May 28, 2017 at 4:59:10 PM UTC-7, Vincent Maycock wrote:
> On Sun, 28 May 2017 15:18:17 -0700 (PDT), Astero...@yahoo.com
> wrote:
>
> >https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZR8LffnS3rE
> >
> >The people who claim that a pattern of metal doesn't exist there, that it's all random, have never seen this video and have never taken detector to the site and marked them off with ribbons.
>
> Have you done that? If so, where's your own video? ... (not a video
> of, say, John Baumgardner walking around at random -- someone who, by
> the way no longer believes it's the ark)?

By the way, John Baumgardner said he was convinced of it being the Ark having used a metal detector. And John Baumgardner said that he didn't believe it was the Ark having used a dowsing rod. Since you saw John Baumgardner using a metal detector, how do you explain that?

[Cloud Hobbit]

On Sunday, May 28, 2017 at 3:18:19 PM UTC-7, Astero...@yahoo.com wrote:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZR8LffnS3rE
>
> The people who claim that a pattern of metal doesn't exist there, that it's all random, have never seen this video and have never taken detector to the site and marked them off with ribbons. The fact of the matter is, the pattern does exist. It's there. I don't have to argue it, it's there and it's proven.

The pattern may be, but it is not what the believers claim.

it is a natural rock formation with nothing special about it except that a few idiots think it is an ark that never could have been built and even if it could have been could not have survived on rough seas.


The size and shape of the structure has led to its promotion by some believers as the original Noah's Ark. However, there are both mainstream scientists[1][2] and creationists[3] who believe this is merely a slightly unusual natural formation. The site is near several officially unnamed peaks, though locals call one of the nearby peaks Cudi Dağı in Turkish and Çîyaye Cûdî in Kurdish, which David Fasold linked to Mount Judi (Arabic: الجودي‎‎ al-Ǧūdī), the mountain named in the Qur'an as the final resting place of Noah's Ark.[4][5] Some researchers place Mount Judi in another location farther south near the Turkish/Iraqi border.[6]

After a few expeditions to the Durupınar site that included drilling and excavation in the 1990s, Fasold began to have doubts that the Durupınar formation was Noah's ark. He visited the site in September 1994 with Australian geologist Ian Plimer and concluded that the structure was not a boat.[15] He surmised that ancient peoples had erroneously believed the site was the ark.[15][17] In 1996, Fasold co-wrote a paper with geologist Lorence Collins titled "Bogus 'Noah's Ark' from Turkey Exposed as a Common Geologic Structure" which concluded that the boat-shaped formation was a natural stone formation that merely resembled a boat. The same paper pointed out that the "anchors" were local volcanic stone.[17] The abstract reads:

A natural rock structure near Dogubayazit, Turkey, has been misidentified as Noah's Ark. Microscopic studies of a supposed iron bracket show that it is derived from weathered volcanic minerals. Supposed metal-braced walls are natural concentrations of limonite and magnetite in steeply inclined sedimentary layers in the limbs of a doubly plunging syncline. Supposed fossilized gopherwood bark is crinkled metamorphosed peridotite. Fossiliferous limestone, interpreted as cross cutting the syncline, preclude the structure from being Noah's Ark because these supposed "Flood" deposits are younger than the "Ark." Anchor stones at Kazan (Arzap) are derived from local andesite and not from Mesopotamia.[17]

In April 1997, in sworn testimony at an Australian court case, Fasold repeated his doubts and noted that he regarded the claim that Noah's ark had been found as "absolute BS".[18][19][20]

Others, such as fellow ark researcher David Allen Deal, reported that before his death, Fasold returned to a belief that the Durupınar site might be the location of the ark.[21] His close Australian friend and biographer June Dawes wrote:

He [Fasold] kept repeating that no matter what the experts said, there was too much going for the [Durupınar] site for it to be dismissed. He remained convinced it was the fossilized remains of Noah's Ark.[22]


The Arzap Drogue Stones are a number of large standing stones found near the Durupınar site by amateur archaeologist Ron Wyatt with the aid of David Fasold and others. Fasold interpreted the artifacts as drogues, stone weights used to stabilize the Ark in rough seas, because they all have a chamfered hole cut at one end as if to fasten a rope to them, and his reading of the Epic of Gilgamesh, the Babylonian mythical account of the flood, suggested to him that such stones were used.[23][24]

Drogue stones were the equivalent of a storm anchor on ancient ships. They have been found in the Nile and elsewhere in the Mediterranean area, and like the stones found by Wyatt and Fasold, they are heavy and flat with a hole for tying a line at one end. Their purpose was to create drag in the water or along shallow sandy bottoms: the stone was attached to one end of a boat, and the drag produced would cause the bow or stern to face into the wind and wind-blown waves.[25]

A geological investigation of samples from the stones, published by geologist Lorence Collins in co-authorship with their original discoverer David Fasold, found that they are of local rock and thus could not have been brought from Mesopotamia, the Ark's supposed place of origin.[17] Similar stones found throughout ancient Armenia are recognised as pagan "holy stones" converted to Christian use by the addition of crosses and other Christian symbols. Many are found in Christian cemeteries, as these were.[26]

http://www.snopes.com/religion/noahsark.asp

One of the most familiar accounts found in the Old Testament is the Book of Genesis story of Noah, who upon God’s instruction built an ark to preserve himself, his family, and the animals of the world when God decided to destroy the world with a flood due to His regret over

“how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth.” In that Biblical account, Noah and the ark’s other inhabitants survived the cataclysmic deluge that flooded the surface of the Earth, and once the flood waters receded, “the ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat.” For many centuries, religious scholars, philosophers, explorers, and others have attempted to determine just where in the world the “mountains of Ararat” actually are, and to uncover evidence documenting that the ark described in Genesis did indeed exist. Over the years many different sites have been identified as the place where Noah’s ark came to rest, and a number of different expeditions have laid claim to discovering physical evidence of such a vessel.

One of those is the Durupinar site, an area in the Mount Tendürek area of eastern Turkey (just north of the Iranian border) which features a boat-like formation reportedly exposed by heavy rains and earthquakes in 1948 and named for Turkish Army Captain Ilhan Durupinar, who identified it in a Turkish Air Force aerial photo taken during a NATO mapping mission in October 1959. Photographs of the site were published in Life magazine in 1960, and a group from the Archeological Research Foundation surveyed the site in September of that year, and ever since then various claimants, most notably Ron Wyatt, have asserted that the “boat-shaped formation” found there contains the remains of Noah’s Ark:


The shape looked like hull of a ship. One end was pointed as you would expect from bow [below: D] and the opposite end was blunt like a stern. The distance from bow to stern was 515 feet, or exactly 300 Egyptian cubits. The average width was 50 cubits. These were the exact measurements mentioned in the Bible.

On the starboard side (right) near the stern there were four vertical bulges protruding from the mud [B], at regular intervals, that were determined to be the “ribs” of the hull. Opposite to these, on the port side, a single rib [A] protrudes from the mud. You can see its curved shape very clearly. Surrounding it are more ribs, still largely buried in the mud, but visible upon close examination.

The initial investigation of the site found no evidence of an ark and reported that the object of interest appeared to be nothing more than a natural formation, but a number of scientific-sounding articles nonetheless still tout findings supported by “visual evidence,” “ground-penetrating radar” and laboratory analysis of “artifacts retrieved from the ark” as documenting the presence of Noah’s ark at the Durupinar site. However,
geologists from Andrew A. Snelling of Answers in Genesis to Lorence G. Collins of California State University Northridge’s Department of Geological Sciences have debunked the notion of Durupinar site as containing anything more than a completely natural geologic rock formation. The former, particularly, has published a point-by-point refutation of numerous claims made about the site, summarized briefly as follows:


Claim: Metal detector surveys found a regular pattern of ‘hot spots’ which could be joined to reveal a regular pattern of ‘lines’ lengthwise and across the inside of the formation only.

Reality: A standard beach combing type metal detector (the type with a disc-shaped detector head on the end of a long pole) indeed found ‘hot spots,’ but these were randomly distributed and not in a regular pattern along lines.

Claim: Metal detecting surveys using a ‘molecular frequency generator/discriminator’ mapped out these ‘iron lines,’ which represent longitudinal and cross beams containing iron nails and /or brackets.

Reality: Qualified scientists have been independently consulted about this gadget, which is generally advertised in treasure-hunting magazines, not scientific journals. They are unanimous that there are no scientific principles employed.

Claim: The pattern of ‘iron lines’ that was located by the metal detecting surveys and marked out by plastic tape was duplicated and verified by other subsurface techniques including ground penetrating, or subsurface interface, radar surveys.

Reality: This claim is utterly false, yet it has been persistently used to give credence to diagrams purporting to show the internal structure of a boat, namely Noah’s Ark.

Claim: In the walls that define the outline of the boat-shape is evidence of a former ship’s ribs, presumably the timbers that formed part of the original keel structure/hull.

Reality: These walls are simply hardened mud, containing boulders of the various local rock types. They contain no petrified wood holding in the mud in any way reminiscent of the outer planking of a wooden hulled vessel.

Claim: There are trainloads and boatloads of petrified wood out there and it is all in the boat structure.

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.

Claim: Soil samples from the site indicate the residue of a decayed wooden vessel with sophisticated metals used for bracing

Reality: It is true that the samples contained iron, aluminum, titanium and carbon, but such elements are always to be found in soils.

Claim: Some pitch has been found (pitch was used to cover the inside and outside of the Ark’s wooden structure) at the site.

Reality: No sample containing pitch has been openly produced and submitted for proper scientific analyses.

Claim: A rusted metal bracket and other fittings and metal artifacts, including a ‘petrified rivet’ and ‘washer structures,’ have all been located ‘on the site.’

Reality: Results do not show any evidence of exotic metallurgy.

Claim: Rocks found within the formation have a high manganese content and an appearance that suggests that they were probably ‘tailings’/’slag’ from metal smelting/refining production by Noah and family.

Reality: No microscope thin section has been produced to show whether the samples collected and claimed to be slag do in fact have the internal texture and mineral composition of a true slag.

Claim: Positively identified animal coprolite (fossilized animal dung), animal hair, and ‘animal antlers’ are all reported from the site and are thus further confirmation that this site contains the remains of Noah’s Ark.

Reality: The finding of such animal residues in association with the site is hardly surprising when one considers that animals are likely to have roamed across these Turkish hillsides for thousands of years.

In conclusion, Dr. Snelling noted that:


Geological mapping indicates that there is a fault right along the western edge of the boat-shape and other faults in the valley floor. It is thus significant that this boat-shape first came into view as a result of an earthquake in 1948, and then its relief compared to the surrounding terrain was enhanced as a result of a further earthquake in 1978.

This clearly implies that the earthquakes caused ground movements in this area which pushed up this block of basement rock and some of the mudflow material draped over it. Some of this movement occurred along the fault down the western margin of the boatshape, thus giving the almost near-vertical ‘walls’ which now define so graphically that portion of the outline of the boat-shape. Thus the ‘walls’ at this point are really what are known in geological terminology as fault scarps (that is, cliffs caused by earth movements along faults)

We need to always exercise due care when claims are made, no matter who makes them, and any claims must always be subjected to the most rigorous scientific scrutiny. If that had happened here, and particularly if the scientific surveys conducted by highly qualified professionals using sophisticated instruments had been more widely publicized and their results taken note of, then these claims would never have received the widespread credence that they have.

https://answersingenesis.org/creationism/arguments-to-avoid/that-boat-shaped-rock-is-it-noahs-ark/

Advocates of the site claim to have found linear bands of metallic material representing ‘beams’ in the Ark. These were discovered using a technique commonly known as ‘dowsing’, complete with brass rods held in one’s hand, which dip downward or cross in the presence of the desired metal, or so it is claimed. (This is similar to ‘witching’ for water using a forked stick, a practice almost universally condemned by evangelicals. There are no known principles of physics by which it operates.) According to Dr John Baumgardner, creationist geophysicist and formerly an advocate of the site, the anomalies discerned by this technique were not confirmed by use of a metal detector, which operates on known principles of physics. The presence of manganese nodules throughout the area, as well as iron and copper ore nearby, render any sober metal detection effort futile.

Dr Baumgardner has conducted the most careful scientific study of the site to date. Using subsurface radar, little was learned. A seismic study indicated the presence of a rather flat planar surface under several feet of soil which was initially thought to indicate the Ark’s top deck. Subsequent core drilling, however, revealed that the material was a rock layer, the same rock layer as found outcropping on adjacent hillsides. Although formerly convinced that this formation was probably the remains of the Ark, Dr Baumgardner now believes there is less than a 10 percent chance that anything man-made is present.

Sorry hemmarhoid7 but your ark is bullshit.

Not even creationists loonies think it is the ark.

Nothing of the research done by the loonies at the site has been available for research or independent confirmation as far as I know.

It's a fake, a fraud, a delusion of religious fools.
In short, bullshit.

[Astero...@yahoo.com]

On Sunday, May 28, 2017 at 11:02:03 PM UTC-7, Cloud Hobbit wrote:
> On Sunday, May 28, 2017 at 3:18:19 PM UTC-7, Astero...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZR8LffnS3rE
> >
> > The people who claim that a pattern of metal doesn't exist there, that it's all random, have never seen this video and have never taken detector to the site and marked them off with ribbons. The fact of the matter is, the pattern does exist. It's there. I don't have to argue it, it's there and it's proven.
>
> The pattern may be, but it is not what the believers claim.
>
> it is a natural rock

No, it's not made of rock. If you want to take something of archeology and make it into geology, it'd be more of a conglomerate of mud and petrified rock.

>formation with nothing special about it except that a few idiots think it is an ark that never could have been built and even if it could have been could not have survived on rough seas.
>
>
> The size and shape of the structure has led to its promotion by some believers as the original Noah's Ark. However, there are both mainstream scientists[1][2] and creationists[3] who believe this is merely a slightly unusual natural formation. The site is near several officially unnamed peaks, though locals call one of the nearby peaks Cudi Dağı in Turkish and Çîyaye Cûdî in Kurdish, which David Fasold linked to Mount Judi (Arabic: الجودي‎‎ al-Ǧūdī), the mountain named in the Qur'an as the final resting place of Noah's Ark.[4][5] Some researchers place Mount Judi in another location farther south near the Turkish/Iraqi border.[6]
>
> After a few expeditions to the Durupınar site that included drilling and excavation in the 1990s, Fasold began to have doubts that the Durupınar formation was Noah's ark. He visited the site in September 1994 with Australian geologist Ian Plimer and concluded that the structure was not a boat.[15]

No, this is not what happened. Fasold was so miffed by the creationist organizations that dismissed this as being the Ark, miffed by the fact that Wyatt was declared by the Turks as being the founder of Noah's Ark, and miffed by negative things that were said about him, that he said "They don't deserve to find the Ark." He teamed with Ian Plimer because he felt that his book was being plagiarized by a creationist and pro-Durupinar supporter. On the other hand, while he appeared to be debunking the site, he told the Wyatts that he was set-up by Cornerstone, a television program. So, even at this juncture he appeared to be two-faced.

>He surmised that ancient peoples had erroneously believed the site was the ark.[15][17] In 1996, Fasold co-wrote a paper with geologist Lorence Collins titled "Bogus 'Noah's Ark' from Turkey Exposed as a Common Geologic Structure" which concluded that the boat-shaped formation was a natural stone formation that merely resembled a boat. The same paper pointed out that the "anchors" were local volcanic stone.[17] The abstract reads:

In the late 1990's Fasold started posting to Alt. atheism. He made it clear that the 13 lines of pattern were still there, and he adamantly said that the formation was not rock and that several other geologists said the same thing.

>
> A natural rock structure near Dogubayazit, Turkey, has been misidentified as Noah's Ark. Microscopic studies of a supposed iron bracket show that it is derived from weathered volcanic minerals. Supposed metal-braced walls are natural concentrations of limonite and magnetite in steeply inclined sedimentary layers in the limbs of a doubly plunging syncline. Supposed fossilized gopherwood bark is crinkled metamorphosed peridotite. Fossiliferous limestone, interpreted as cross cutting the syncline, preclude the structure from being Noah's Ark because these supposed "Flood" deposits are younger than the "Ark." Anchor stones at Kazan (Arzap) are derived from local andesite and not from Mesopotamia.[17]
>
> In April 1997, in sworn testimony at an Australian court case, Fasold repeated his doubts and noted that he regarded the claim that Noah's ark had been found as "absolute BS".[18][19][20]
>
> Others, such as fellow ark researcher David Allen Deal, reported that before his death, Fasold returned to a belief that the Durupınar site might be the location of the ark.[21] His close Australian friend and biographer June Dawes wrote:
>
> He [Fasold] kept repeating that no matter what the experts said, there was too much going for the [Durupınar] site for it to be dismissed. He remained convinced it was the fossilized remains of Noah's Ark.[22]

About a month before Fasold died, we were e-mailing each other. Fasold was having seizures at the time, and his typing reflected it. A friend of mine told me that in phone-calls Fasold talked just as he wrote. Several times in our e-mails Fasold started writing gibberish.


The evidence suggests that Fasold did not "return" to his belief that it was Noah's Ark, but that he told two different stories to two different groups. He never gave up on the object. He told the Wyatt's that he supported the Ark at the same time that he was dismissing it. But in the end he never gave up on the 13 patterns of metal, and he did support the Ark to his death bed.

[Ted]

<Astero...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, May 28, 2017 at 4:59:10 PM UTC-7, Vincent Maycock wrote:
>> On Sun, 28 May 2017 15:18:17 -0700 (PDT), Astero...@yahoo.com
>> wrote:
>>
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZR8LffnS3rE
>>>
>>> The people who claim that a pattern of metal doesn't exist there, that
>>> it's all random, have never seen this video and have never taken
>>> detector to the site and marked them off with ribbons.
>>
>> Have you done that? If so, where's your own video? ... (not a video
>> of, say, John Baumgardner walking around at random -- someone who, by
>> the way no longer believes it's the ark)?
>
> By the way, John Baumgardner said he was convinced of it being the Ark
> having used a metal detector. And John Baumgardner said that he didn't
> believe it was the Ark having used a dowsing rod. Since you saw John
> Baumgardner using a metal detector, how do you explain that?

Did he use a calibrated dowsing rod?

[Vincent Maycock]

On Sun, 28 May 2017 22:53:03 -0700 (PDT), Astero...@yahoo.com
wrote:

>On Sunday, May 28, 2017 at 4:59:10 PM UTC-7, Vincent Maycock wrote:
>> On Sun, 28 May 2017 15:18:17 -0700 (PDT), Astero...@yahoo.com
>> wrote:
>>
>> >https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZR8LffnS3rE
>> >
>> >The people who claim that a pattern of metal doesn't exist there, that it's all random, have never seen this video and have never taken detector to the site and marked them off with ribbons.
>>
>> Have you done that? If so, where's your own video? ... (not a video
>> of, say, John Baumgardner walking around at random -- someone who, by
>> the way no longer believes it's the ark)?
>
>By the way, John Baumgardner said he was convinced of it being the Ark having used a metal detector. And John Baumgardner said that he didn't believe it was the Ark having used a dowsing rod. Since you saw John Baumgardner using a metal detector, how do you explain that?

I doubt he lives in such a self-contradictory world. Baumgardner
doesn't believe it's the ark on any grounds.

http://www.tentmaker.org/WAR/BaumgardnerLetter.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Baumgardner

[Marvin Sebourn]

Yes Duke, they were calibrated by standards traceable to the NIST, the Natural Institute of Science and Technology (our old Bureau of Standards) and so certified, and therefore compliant with ISO 9001:2000.

Marvin Sebourn
osugeo...@aol.com

[Malte Runz]

On Sun, 28 May 2017 15:18:17 -0700 (PDT), Astero...@yahoo.com
wrote:

>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZR8LffnS3rE
>
>The people who claim that a pattern of metal doesn't exist there, that it's all random, have never seen this video and have never taken detector to the site and marked them off with ribbons. The fact of the matter is, the pattern does exist. It's there. I don't have to argue it, it's there and it's proven.

"Proven". Bullshit.
At 1:56, when the guy filming, starts speculating wildly, the guy with
the metal detector (John) says it all:
"It doesn't necessarily have to be associated with any vertical
structure. Just the remains of some iron."
And the guy with the camera tried to make John say they're evenly
spaced, but he really never confirms it.
From around 5:02 to 5:12 John gets five beeps, four of them pretty
close to each other, the fifth is about twice the distance away, and
the camera dude goes "John, what more do we need!"
I could come up with a whole lot of things John and the dude need to
'prove' that they have found iron nails that held together a giant
wooden boat, now petrified, resting on the slopes of a volcano, after
having been carried down from the top on a river of molten rock.

If you consider that video 'proof' of the Ark, you have no choice but
to accept evolution and common descent considering the quality and
quantity of the evidence supporting it. But then again, you're a
dishonest creationist, with no relevant education and no intention to
learn the truth about the world.

--
Malte Runz

[Malte Runz]

On Sun, 28 May 2017 23:57:53 -0700 (PDT), Astero...@yahoo.com

wrote:

>On Sunday, May 28, 2017 at 11:02:03 PM UTC-7, Cloud Hobbit wrote:
>> On Sunday, May 28, 2017 at 3:18:19 PM UTC-7, Astero...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZR8LffnS3rE
>> >
>> > The people who claim that a pattern of metal doesn't exist there, that it's all random, have never seen this video and have never taken detector to the site and marked them off with ribbons. The fact of the matter is, the pattern does exist. It's there. I don't have to argue it, it's there and it's proven.
>>
>> The pattern may be, but it is not what the believers claim.
>>
>> it is a natural rock
>
>

>No, it's not made of rock. ...

Petrified wood is also rock. So what is it, if it's not "made of
rock"?


> ... If you want to take something of archeology and make it into geology, it'd be more of a conglomerate of mud and petrified rock.

"Petrified rock" [giggles]

(snip)

>In the late 1990's Fasold started posting to Alt. atheism. He made it clear that the 13 lines of pattern were still there, and he adamantly said that the formation was not rock and that several other geologists said the same thing.

Did he say what it was, if not "rock"? Did any of the "several other
geologists" say?

(snip)

--
Malte Runz

[Astero...@yahoo.com]

But John Baumgardner does live in a self-contradictory world. I ask you again, did you see Baumgardner use a metal detector, or was it a dowsing rod?




>
> http://www.tentmaker.org/WAR/BaumgardnerLetter.html

The man who runs "tentmaker" put me in contact with John Baumgardner so I had the opportunity to discuss some of these things, and in particular the metal detection scan that he did. In fact, I brought up the video of him using a White's metal detector. At that point John Baumgardner ceased communicating with me. So you see, he knows what's up.


>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Baumgardner

[Astero...@yahoo.com]

Except that even Astronaut Jim Irwin said he found a pattern out there that made it "seem like it's manmade."

And with David Fasold saying, "what more did we need?" You can clearly see and hear the pattern - and the same that I saw in 2007. It's a done deal. Go there Malte.


>
> --
> Malte Runz

[Astero...@yahoo.com]

On Monday, May 29, 2017 at 11:43:12 AM UTC-7, Malte Runz wrote:
> On Sun, 28 May 2017 23:57:53 -0700 (PDT), Astero...@yahoo.com
> wrote:
>
> >On Sunday, May 28, 2017 at 11:02:03 PM UTC-7, Cloud Hobbit wrote:
> >> On Sunday, May 28, 2017 at 3:18:19 PM UTC-7, Astero...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZR8LffnS3rE
> >> >
> >> > The people who claim that a pattern of metal doesn't exist there, that it's all random, have never seen this video and have never taken detector to the site and marked them off with ribbons. The fact of the matter is, the pattern does exist. It's there. I don't have to argue it, it's there and it's proven.
> >>
> >> The pattern may be, but it is not what the believers claim.
> >>
> >> it is a natural rock
> >
> >
> >No, it's not made of rock. ...
>
> Petrified wood is also rock. So what is it, if it's not "made of
> rock"?
>
>
> > ... If you want to take something of archeology and make it into geology, it'd be more of a conglomerate of mud and petrified rock.
>
> "Petrified rock" [giggles]

Why do you giggle. You seem to be a smart guy doing research. Probably the smartest actual researcher on this group. You can't say that the formation is a rock. It's got rock in it, but as a whole, it's not rock.

>
> (snip)
>
> >In the late 1990's Fasold started posting to Alt. atheism. He made it clear that the 13 lines of pattern were still there, and he adamantly said that the formation was not rock and that several other geologists said the same thing.
>
> Did he say what it was, if not "rock"? Did any of the "several other
> geologists" say?

In his own words, "something covered in mud."



>
> (snip)
>
> --
> Malte Runz

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Mon, 29 May 2017 20:43:30 +0200, Malte Runz
<noyo...@notgetting.it> wrote:

>On Sun, 28 May 2017 23:57:53 -0700 (PDT), Astero...@yahoo.com
>wrote:
>
>>On Sunday, May 28, 2017 at 11:02:03 PM UTC-7, Cloud Hobbit wrote:
>>> On Sunday, May 28, 2017 at 3:18:19 PM UTC-7, Astero...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZR8LffnS3rE
>>> >
>>> > The people who claim that a pattern of metal doesn't exist there, that it's all random, have never seen this video and have never taken detector to the site and marked them off with ribbons. The fact of the matter is, the pattern does exist. It's there. I don't have to argue it, it's there and it's proven.
>>>
>>> The pattern may be, but it is not what the believers claim.
>>>
>>> it is a natural rock
>>
>>
>>No, it's not made of rock. ...
>
>Petrified wood is also rock. So what is it, if it's not "made of
>rock"?
>
>
>> ... If you want to take something of archeology and make it into geology, it'd be more of a conglomerate of mud and petrified rock.
>
>"Petrified rock" [giggles]

He must be stoned.

[Vincent Maycock]

On Mon, 29 May 2017 12:04:06 -0700 (PDT), Astero...@yahoo.com

wrote:

>On Monday, May 29, 2017 at 7:54:37 AM UTC-7, Vincent Maycock wrote:
>> On Sun, 28 May 2017 22:53:03 -0700 (PDT), Astero...@yahoo.com
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Sunday, May 28, 2017 at 4:59:10 PM UTC-7, Vincent Maycock wrote:
>> >> On Sun, 28 May 2017 15:18:17 -0700 (PDT), Astero...@yahoo.com
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZR8LffnS3rE
>> >> >
>> >> >The people who claim that a pattern of metal doesn't exist there, that it's all random, have never seen this video and have never taken detector to the site and marked them off with ribbons.
>> >>
>> >> Have you done that? If so, where's your own video? ... (not a video
>> >> of, say, John Baumgardner walking around at random -- someone who, by
>> >> the way no longer believes it's the ark)?
>> >
>> >By the way, John Baumgardner said he was convinced of it being the Ark having used a metal detector. And John Baumgardner said that he didn't believe it was the Ark having used a dowsing rod. Since you saw John Baumgardner using a metal detector, how do you explain that?
>>
>> I doubt he lives in such a self-contradictory world. Baumgardner
>> doesn't believe it's the ark on any grounds.
>
>But John Baumgardner does live in a self-contradictory world.

Cite, please.

>I ask you again, did you see Baumgardner use a metal detector, or was it a dowsing rod?

Neither; he just says he doesn't believe in it.

>> http://www.tentmaker.org/WAR/BaumgardnerLetter.html
>
>The man who runs "tentmaker" put me in contact with John Baumgardner so I had the opportunity to discuss some of these things, and in particular the metal detection scan that he did. In fact, I brought up the video of him using a White's metal detector. At that point John Baumgardner ceased communicating with me. So you see, he knows what's up.

What's "up" that would motivate a young earth creationist to say this
isn't the ark?

>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Baumgardner

[Cloud Hobbit]

Baumgardner is a Christian who sometimes pursues pseudoscientific creationist research. He has, for example, created a computer simulation called Terra to model the Noachian flood.[1][3] In 1985, Baumgardner joined the controversial amateur archaeologist Ron Wyatt and salvage expert David Fasold to Durupınar, Turkey for an expedition recounted in Fasold's The Ark of Noah to locate the biblical ship's remains.[7] Baumgardner did not support Wyatt and Fasold claims to have found a boat-shaped 'object' which was the Ark. He argued that the object was a natural formation.[8][9] In 1997, US News and World Report described him as "the world's pre-eminent expert in the design of computer models for geophysical convection".[3]

[Cloud Hobbit]

[Kurt Nicklas]

A fraud like "Global Warming"?

[Astero...@yahoo.com]

On Monday, May 29, 2017 at 4:24:50 PM UTC-7, Vincent Maycock wrote:
> On Mon, 29 May 2017 12:04:06 -0700 (PDT), Astero...@yahoo.com
> wrote:
>
> >On Monday, May 29, 2017 at 7:54:37 AM UTC-7, Vincent Maycock wrote:
> >> On Sun, 28 May 2017 22:53:03 -0700 (PDT), Astero...@yahoo.com
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Sunday, May 28, 2017 at 4:59:10 PM UTC-7, Vincent Maycock wrote:
> >> >> On Sun, 28 May 2017 15:18:17 -0700 (PDT), Astero...@yahoo.com
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZR8LffnS3rE
> >> >> >
> >> >> >The people who claim that a pattern of metal doesn't exist there, that it's all random, have never seen this video and have never taken detector to the site and marked them off with ribbons.
> >> >>
> >> >> Have you done that? If so, where's your own video? ... (not a video
> >> >> of, say, John Baumgardner walking around at random -- someone who, by
> >> >> the way no longer believes it's the ark)?
> >> >
> >> >By the way, John Baumgardner said he was convinced of it being the Ark having used a metal detector. And John Baumgardner said that he didn't believe it was the Ark having used a dowsing rod. Since you saw John Baumgardner using a metal detector, how do you explain that?
> >>
> >> I doubt he lives in such a self-contradictory world. Baumgardner
> >> doesn't believe it's the ark on any grounds.
> >
> >But John Baumgardner does live in a self-contradictory world.
>
> Cite, please.
>
> >I ask you again, did you see Baumgardner use a metal detector, or was it a dowsing rod?
>
> Neither; he just says he doesn't believe in it.

Really?

"Even Baumgardner, to his later embarrassment, was initially taken in by the false claims attributed to this ‘instrument’[dowsing rod/molecular frequency generator]. [http://creation.com/special-report-amazing-ark-expose]

Reads the same expose: "A standard beach combing type metal detector (the type with a disc-shaped detector head on the end of a long pole) ‘hot spots’ were indeed found, but these were randomly distributed and not in a regular pattern along lines."

But as you can see from the posted video, Baumgardner determined that the formation was Noah's Ark after using a metal detector. And, from the video, it is quite obvious that the pattern is manmade. Even Astronaut Jim Irwin says that:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cOkSn9dBavQ

>
> >> http://www.tentmaker.org/WAR/BaumgardnerLetter.html
> >
> >The man who runs "tentmaker" put me in contact with John Baumgardner so I had the opportunity to discuss some of these things, and in particular the metal detection scan that he did. In fact, I brought up the video of him using a White's metal detector. At that point John Baumgardner ceased communicating with me. So you see, he knows what's up.
>
> What's "up" that would motivate a young earth creationist to say this
> isn't the ark?

What's up is that I presented the contradictory evidence. Baumgardner says Dowsing rods, and he used a metal detector, that's what's up.

Here are Baumgardner's own words in response to this question:

[Question to Baumgardner] 6. Was the article in that Fasold quotes in his book just a fabrication of David Fasold, or did you really "using a metal detector, Baumgardner has been able to confirm the existence of metal at regular intervals. Baumgardner says he believes that metal is at the points where these lines intersect, giving rise to the speculation metal was used in the infrastructure of this craft?"

Baumgardner: --The method was a type of dowsing that David Fasold introduced and I naively copied. Upon discerning what it was, I forsook it. - Baumgardner

http://www.tentmaker.org/WAR/BaumgardnerLetter.html


>
> >>
> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Baumgardner

[Astero...@yahoo.com]

The truth be told, Baumgardner is on video saying that he did believe it was Noah's Ark. Later on he said he did not believe it was Noah's Ark after using dowsing rods. These are his words:

-The method was a type of dowsing that David Fasold introduced and I naively copied. Upon discerning what it was, I forsook it.

But the video I posted shows him using a metal detector.

So, just saying that Baumgardner is a young earth creationist does nothing to help your argument. He's a YEC who made a mistake.

[Cloud Hobbit]

Whether you believe in man-made global warming or not, the people claiming it has actual data to bolster their case. Every piece of "evidence" from the Durupinar site have been found to be bogus, starting with the fact there is no geological evidence of a flood there.

https://www.csun.edu/~vcgeo005/bogus.html

Abstract

A natural rock structure near Dogubayazit, Turkey, has been misidentified as Noah's Ark. Microscopic studies of a supposed iron bracket show that it is derived from weathered volcanic minerals. Supposed metal-braced walls are natural concentrations of limonite and magnetite in steeply inclined sedimentary layers in the limbs of a doubly plunging syncline. Supposed fossilized gopherwood bark is crinkled metamorphosed peridotite. Fossiliferous limestone, interpreted as cross cutting the syncline, preclude the structure from being Noah's Ark because these supposed "Flood" deposits are younger than the "Ark." Anchor stones at Kazan (Arzap) are derived from local andesite and not from Mesopotamia.

The "anchor stone" (Figure 3) at Kazan (Arzap) is a fine-grained (0.001-1.0 mm) porphyritic volcanic rock in which phenocrysts (0.2-1.0 mm) consist of about 6% ilmenitic magnetite (a titanium and iron oxide containing some manganese) and about 29% plagioclase (andesine-labradorite). The very fine-grained ground mass (about 65%) contains plagioclase and ilmenitic magnetite, but with large amounts of ilmenitic magnetite than occurs as phenocrysts. The composition of this anchor stone is unusual because it lacks magnesium-rich minerals such as pyroxenes and olivine. A chemical analyses of this rock is given as Table 1.

All rock samples from the structure are pyroxene-bearing andesite or basalt partly altered to serpentine. Local calcite veins (3-5 mm wide) cut across the rock. Ilmenitic magnetite is a common accessory.

The supposed "iron bracket" is composed of granules of limonite, some of which have sizes and shapes that match those of ilmenitic magnetite crystals in the andesite of the Ark, the anchor stone, and nearby peridotite. These granules are enclosed in a matrix of calcite, clay, quartz, and fragments of anthophyllite. Many limonite granules exhibit rhythmic concretionary layers. Rare veins of pyrolusite (MnO2) locally cut the limonite.

The layered samples of rocks in the mud that Fasold recovered and believed to be cavity-fillings are andesite and basalt pebbles, typical of conglomeratic mud-flows in volcanic terranes. Similar samples recovered by him from areas claimed by others to be rib timbers, planking, and deck beams are also andesite or basalt pebbles or boulders and show no evidence of petrified wood.

In the field, the supposed iron brackets have the outward appearance of pieces of black, metallic, elemental iron. The black, shiny surfaces, however, are characteristic of goethite (crystalline limonite), a hydrated iron oxide). This mineral is associated in the "structure" with black, ilmenitic, magnetite granules, and possibly pyrite or pyrrhotite because locally some sulfur is reported in chemical analyses. Both magnetite and goethite cause a metal detector to buzz just like elemental iron. Therefore, investigators might presume that they had found rusted iron metal (Wyatt, 1994).

If Noah's ship builders had forged this supposed iron bracket in a primitive smelter, the bracket would not consist of iron that was thoroughly mixed with clay, quartz, calcite, and anthophyllite particles but would have been solid iron. In molten iron these matrix minerals would have been separated as slag or destroyed. Furthermore, scanning electron (SEM) chemical analyses of five different places in the iron bracket show the variability given in Table 2.

This variability also rules out the idea that the iron was formed by smelting because smelting would homogenize the molten metal and produce a nearly constant composition. The high and variable titanium contents occur because the limonite grains were derived from hydrous alteration of ilmenitic magnetite granules eroded from different volcanic sources and having variable TiO2 contents.

Potassium, aluminum and silicon oxides reported in the iron bracket occur in interstitial clay. Small percentages of calcium oxide are either from calcite and apatite (where phosphorous occurs) or are totally from calcite where phosphorous is absent. Apatite is common in volcanic rocks where it is intergrown with plagioclase or magnetite, and, therefore, it can be eroded, transported, and become a constituent of rocks in the structure (Figure 2).

Conclusion

Evidence from microscopic studies and photo analyses demonstrates that the supposed Ark near Dogubayazit is a completely natural rock formation. It cannot have been Noah's Ark nor even a man-made model. It is understandable why early investigators falsely identified it. The unusual boat-shaped structure would so catch their attention that an eagerness to be persons who either discovered Noah's Ark or confirmed its existence would tend to override caution. An illustration of the degree to which caution was disregarded by supporters of the Noah's Ark hypothesis is shown by the mistaken identification of a metamorphosed peridotite with crinkle folds as either gopherwood bark or casts of fossilized reeds that supposedly once covered the Ark (Wyatt, 1994). Furthermore, if the Creationism Flood hypothesis were valid (Baumgardner, 1985, 1990), the "dead animals" represented by fossils in this limestone must have died in the supposed Flood, and these fossilized remains are found in channels that cut the supposed Ark. Therefore, the supposed Ark is older than the deposits of the supposed Noachian Flood, and this relationship in itself conclusively refutes the hypothesis that the structure is the preserved remnants of the Ark.

When the site is again accessible to foreign investigators, the area near Kazan (Arzap) needs to be examined to see if outcrops of volcanic rocks occur there that have a mineralogy similar to that of the anchor stones. If so, a local source for the anchor stones is strongly supported. Lacking this information for this article, however, in no way negates the conclusion that the boat-shaped rock formation is totally natural.

Finally, David Fasold suggested that, although the structure is not Noah's Ark, it may very well be the site which the ancients regarded as the ship of the Deluge and may have played a role in the Flood story. As a geologist, I find this to be a interesting speculation.

[Yap Honghor]

For all of your excitement, why don't you ask your chief conman the pope to lead your believers to the site??????

[Cloud Hobbit]

Try this on for size. Actual facts about what was found and claimed as evidence.
https://www.csun.edu/~vcgeo005/bogus.html

Abstract

A natural rock structure near Dogubayazit, Turkey, has been misidentified as Noah's Ark. Microscopic studies of a supposed iron bracket show that it is derived from weathered volcanic minerals. Supposed metal-braced walls are natural concentrations of limonite and magnetite in steeply inclined sedimentary layers in the limbs of a doubly plunging syncline. Supposed fossilized gopherwood bark is crinkled metamorphosed peridotite. Fossiliferous limestone, interpreted as cross cutting the syncline, preclude the structure from being Noah's Ark because these supposed "Flood" deposits are younger than the "Ark." Anchor stones at Kazan (Arzap) are derived from local andesite and not from Mesopotamia.

It was at this time that I (Collins), as senior author and a geologist, came into the picture. In order to respond to Fasold's question and other queries, I first examined thin sections of the supposed iron bracket from the Ark to determine whether the iron could have been forged in a furnace. I also analyzed thin sections of what he thought might be replacement material that had seeped into void spaces, which he thought were places where wood poles and other structural supports had decomposed to leave cavities, and which now were filled with layered deposits.

Fasold also brought me a sample chip recovered from an anomalous ribbed-rock at Kazan (Arzap). This large rock had once been held in veneration by the local people, mounted upright and carved with glyphs. Sounding hollow when hit with a hammer, this rock was claimed by one researcher in his video to be petrified gopherwood (Wyatt, 1994). Fasold disagreed because he did not envision the Ark as being constructed of wood. It would be logical to assume, Fasold says, that Noah built an overly large proto-Sumerian-type craft of bundled reeds. There would be nothing left after so many years since Noah's time, but the anomalous rock displayed some interesting rippled impressions. If anything, Fasold felt it was more likely some pitch-like substance, now hardened, which was originally applied over the hull leaving imprints of reeds. It was worth looking at a thin section of this rock.

I also made a thin section of one of the "anchor drogues" (Figure 3) and obtained a chemical analysis to see if these stones could have been quarried by Noah in Mesopotamia. Finally, I interpreted aerial and ground photographs of the site and surrounding region. Some of my conclusions are preliminary, but are represented here because the site is now currently inaccessible to investigators, due to political unrest near the Iran-Turkey border. The following are the results of my analyses and interpretations.
Microscopic and Chemical Studies

The "anchor stone" (Figure 3) at Kazan (Arzap) is a fine-grained (0.001-1.0 mm) porphyritic volcanic rock in which phenocrysts (0.2-1.0 mm) consist of about 6% ilmenitic magnetite (a titanium and iron oxide containing some manganese) and about 29% plagioclase (andesine-labradorite). The very fine-grained ground mass (about 65%) contains plagioclase and ilmenitic magnetite, but with large amounts of ilmenitic magnetite than occurs as phenocrysts. The composition of this anchor stone is unusual because it lacks magnesium-rich minerals such as pyroxenes and olivine. A chemical analyses of this rock is given as Table 1.

All rock samples from the structure are pyroxene-bearing andesite or basalt partly altered to serpentine. Local calcite veins (3-5 mm wide) cut across the rock. Ilmenitic magnetite is a common accessory.

The supposed "iron bracket" is composed of granules of limonite, some of which have sizes and shapes that match those of ilmenitic magnetite crystals in the andesite of the Ark, the anchor stone, and nearby peridotite. These granules are enclosed in a matrix of calcite, clay, quartz, and fragments of anthophyllite. Many limonite granules exhibit rhythmic concretionary layers. Rare veins of pyrolusite (MnO2) locally cut the limonite.

Interpretations

Volcanic rocks similar to the andesitic "anchor stones" occur in the area surrounding Mt. Ararat (Pearce and others, 1990). The almost total absence of volcanic rocks in Mesopotamia (now Iraq) (Pearce and others, 1990; Aswad and Elias, 1988), where Noah's Ark is alleged to have been constructed, reasonably eliminate the possibility that the anchor stones were transported to Kazan by Noah's Ark. Because of the great weight of these stones, a nearby source is much more likely.

The layered samples of rocks in the mud that Fasold recovered and believed to be cavity-fillings are andesite and basalt pebbles, typical of conglomeratic mud-flows in volcanic terranes. Similar samples recovered by him from areas claimed by others to be rib timbers, planking, and deck beams are also andesite or basalt pebbles or boulders and show no evidence of petrified wood.

In the field, the supposed iron brackets have the outward appearance of pieces of black, metallic, elemental iron. The black, shiny surfaces, however, are characteristic of goethite (crystalline limonite), a hydrated iron oxide). This mineral is associated in the "structure" with black, ilmenitic, magnetite granules, and possibly pyrite or pyrrhotite because locally some sulfur is reported in chemical analyses. Both magnetite and goethite cause a metal detector to buzz just like elemental iron. Therefore, investigators might presume that they had found rusted iron metal (Wyatt, 1994).

If Noah's ship builders had forged this supposed iron bracket in a primitive smelter, the bracket would not consist of iron that was thoroughly mixed with clay, quartz, calcite, and anthophyllite particles but would have been solid iron. In molten iron these matrix minerals would have been separated as slag or destroyed. Furthermore, scanning electron (SEM) chemical analyses of five different places in the iron bracket show the variability given in Table 2.

This variability also rules out the idea that the iron was formed by smelting because smelting would homogenize the molten metal and produce a nearly constant composition. The high and variable titanium contents occur because the limonite grains were derived from hydrous alteration of ilmenitic magnetite granules eroded from different volcanic sources and having variable TiO2 contents.

Potassium, aluminum and silicon oxides reported in the iron bracket occur in interstitial clay. Small percentages of calcium oxide are either from calcite and apatite (where phosphorous occurs) or are totally from calcite where phosphorous is absent. Apatite is common in volcanic rocks where it is intergrown with plagioclase or magnetite, and, therefore, it can be eroded, transported, and become a constituent of rocks in the structure (Figure 2).

Supposed Walls In The Ark Structure

Linear (planar) limonite concentrations along supposed walls in the Ark were traced independently by three investigators, each using different electronic instruments but producing the same results (Wyatt, 1994). Thirteen lines of limonite, marking supposed walls, converge toward the structures pointed end, and a similar convergence occurs at the opposite, "blunt" end. Transverse to the longitudinal limonite concentrations are nine lines of limonite, which were interpreted to be walls dividing Ark rooms.

Although these relationships might seem to be logical evidence to indicate that the structure was originally man-made, I, as a geologist, can show that all these features could be formed by natural processes. Joining of lines in concentric shells at the structure's pointed end is consistent with the structure being an eroded doubly plunging syncline (Figure 4). At the blunt end, however, lines were not found wrapped around parallel to the outer relatively resistant rock of the Ark, which a cross-sectional view of a doubly plunging synclinal structure predicts. Their absence here occurs because eroded alluvium from the Ark's interior spills over the rounded end and buries the bedrock. Therefore, converging lines of limonite and magnetite are covered so that they are undetected. Moreover, streams of eroded limonite and magnetite granules, projecting beyond the resistant layer, give the false appearance of a metal-braced structure extending beyond the rounded end (Fasold, 1988).

Limonite concentrations in dividing walls can be formed naturally because stresses applied to rocks that are folded into a boat shape commonly produce fracture patterns that cut across sedimentary layers. Water moving through these fractures and coming in contact with ilmenitic magnetite (or pyrite) granules in the layers, would produce the limonite concentrations and stains.

Finally, no fossilized wood or traces of elemental carbon, wood, or reed fragments have ever been found associated with the limonite walls or in any other place during trenching or core drilling. The absence of ancient biotic carbons supports the hypothesis that the boat-shaped structure is not Noah's Ark. Inorganic carbon in calcite in veins cutting the layers, however, is common.

Conclusion

Evidence from microscopic studies and photo analyses demonstrates that the supposed Ark near Dogubayazit is a completely natural rock formation. It cannot have been Noah's Ark nor even a man-made model. It is understandable why early investigators falsely identified it. The unusual boat-shaped structure would so catch their attention that an eagerness to be persons who either discovered Noah's Ark or confirmed its existence would tend to override caution. An illustration of the degree to which caution was disregarded by supporters of the Noah's Ark hypothesis is shown by the mistaken identification of a metamorphosed peridotite with crinkle folds as either gopherwood bark or casts of fossilized reeds that supposedly once covered the Ark (Wyatt, 1994). Furthermore, if the Creationism Flood hypothesis were valid (Baumgardner, 1985, 1990), the "dead animals" represented by fossils in this limestone must have died in the supposed Flood, and these fossilized remains are found in channels that cut the supposed Ark. Therefore, the supposed Ark is older than the deposits of the supposed Noachian Flood, and this relationship in itself conclusively refutes the hypothesis that the structure is the preserved remnants of the Ark.

When the site is again accessible to foreign investigators, the area near Kazan (Arzap) needs to be examined to see if outcrops of volcanic rocks occur there that have a mineralogy similar to that of the anchor stones. If so, a local source for the anchor stones is strongly supported. Lacking this information for this article, however, in no way negates the conclusion that the boat-shaped rock formation is totally natural.

Finally, David Fasold suggested that, although the structure is not Noah's Ark, it may very well be the site which the ancients regarded as the ship of the Deluge and may have played a role in the Flood story. As a geologist, I find this to be a interesting speculation.

>
> >

> > (snip)
> >
> > --
> > Malte Runz

[Malte Runz]

On Mon, 29 May 2017 12:09:33 -0700 (PDT), Astero...@yahoo.com

wrote:

>On Monday, May 29, 2017 at 11:43:12 AM UTC-7, Malte Runz wrote:
>> On Sun, 28 May 2017 23:57:53 -0700 (PDT), Astero...@yahoo.com
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Sunday, May 28, 2017 at 11:02:03 PM UTC-7, Cloud Hobbit wrote:
>> >> On Sunday, May 28, 2017 at 3:18:19 PM UTC-7, Astero...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> >> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZR8LffnS3rE
>> >> >
>> >> > The people who claim that a pattern of metal doesn't exist there, that it's all random, have never seen this video and have never taken detector to the site and marked them off with ribbons. The fact of the matter is, the pattern does exist. It's there. I don't have to argue it, it's there and it's proven.
>> >>
>> >> The pattern may be, but it is not what the believers claim.
>> >>
>> >> it is a natural rock
>> >
>> >
>> >No, it's not made of rock. ...
>>
>> Petrified wood is also rock. So what is it, if it's not "made of
>> rock"?
>>
>>
>> > ... If you want to take something of archeology and make it into geology, it'd be more of a conglomerate of mud and petrified rock.
>>
>> "Petrified rock" [giggles]
>
>Why do you giggle.

To 'petrify' means, literally, to turn into rock.


> ... You seem to be a smart guy doing research. ...

Everything is not what it appears to be.

> ... Probably the smartest actual researcher on this group. ...

That's not even remotely true. Fake flattery will get you nowhere.

> ... You can't say that the formation is a rock. ...

I never claimed it was "a rock". I've called it 'a pile of mud and
weathered rocks', though.

> ... It's got rock in it, but as a whole, it's not rock.

You said: "it's not made of rock". What is it made of?

>
>
>>
>> (snip)
>>
>> >In the late 1990's Fasold started posting to Alt. atheism. He made it clear that the 13 lines of pattern were still there, and he adamantly said that the formation was not rock and that several other geologists said the same thing.
>>
>> Did he say what it was, if not "rock"? Did any of the "several other
>> geologists" say?
>
>In his own words, "something covered in mud."

The mud part is obvious. I've seen the images and videos, and I've
read several geologists' description. Definitely mud. So, what does
the mud cover, if it is not something "made of rock"?

--
Malte Runz

[Malte Runz]

On Mon, 29 May 2017 12:07:18 -0700 (PDT), Astero...@yahoo.com
wrote:

"Seem like" is not the same as 'is'. Not even if it's an astronaut
saying it.

>
>And with David Fasold saying, "what more did we need?" You can clearly see and hear the pattern ...

No, I can't. I can see, barely, because of the very low resolution of
the video (filmed of a TV screen, it seems), a couple of guys walking
around with a metal detector that goes beep at irregular intervals. We
are never shown what caused the beep, and we certainly aren't
presented with any pattern.
Beep...beep..beep............beep....beep...boat!

> .... - and the same that I saw in 2007. ...

You saw a pile of mud and weathered rocks, and was eventually, despite
your immediate frustration, convinced it was a giant petrified wooden
boat on the slopes of an active volcano.


> ... It's a done deal. ...

Read Cloud Hobbit's reply.
https://www.csun.edu/~vcgeo005/bogus.html


> ... Go there Malte.

Nope, and you should go to a local community college and learn some
geology.

--
Malte Runz

[hypatiab7]

On Sunday, May 28, 2017 at 6:54:48 PM UTC-4, duke wrote:
> <Astero...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZR8LffnS3rE
> >
> > The people who claim that a pattern of metal doesn't exist there, that
> > it's all random, have never seen this video and have never taken detector
> > to the site and marked them off with ribbons. The fact of the matter
> > is, the pattern does exist. It's there. I don't have to argue it, it's
> > there and it's proven.
>

> What's the Durupinar site?

You haven't been reading Johnboi's messages for the past 17 years? You
just broke his heart. It's where Noah's Ark never has been, since it
never existed. The fraud Ron Wyatt lied about a ship shaped rock formation
(there are tons of them in that mountain range) being the remains of
Noah's Ark. It's in Turkey and very difficult to visit.

[Malte Runz]

On Mon, 29 May 2017 20:52:49 -0700 (PDT), Astero...@yahoo.com
wrote:

(snip)

> ... He's a YEC who made a mistake.

Aren't they all?

--
Malte Runz

[hypatiab7]

On Sunday, May 28, 2017 at 6:18:19 PM UTC-4, Astero...@yahoo.com wrote:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZR8LffnS3rE
>
> The people who claim that a pattern of metal doesn't exist there, that it's all random, have never seen this video and have never taken detector to the site and marked them off with ribbons. The fact of the matter is, the pattern does exist. It's there. I don't have to argue it, it's there and it's proven.

You're repeating your Ron Wyatt crap again. No one cares, except to tell you that you are full of it and disprove every word you repeat over and over.

[hypatiab7]

On Sunday, May 28, 2017 at 7:52:41 PM UTC-4, Astero...@yahoo.com wrote:

> On Sunday, May 28, 2017 at 4:39:25 PM UTC-7, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
> > On Sun, 28 May 2017 22:54:46 +0000 (UTC), Ted <stree...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >

> > ><Astero...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZR8LffnS3rE
> > >>
> > >> The people who claim that a pattern of metal doesn't exist there, that
> > >> it's all random, have never seen this video and have never taken detector
> > >> to the site and marked them off with ribbons. The fact of the matter
> > >> is, the pattern does exist. It's there. I don't have to argue it, it's
> > >> there and it's proven.
> > >

> > >What's the Durupinar site?
> >

> > Where some loonies imagine the ark has been found.
>

> What on site investigation have you done?

Is that why you dropped out of college - so you could go to Turkey?
What a loser.

[hypatiab7]

On Sunday, May 28, 2017 at 7:52:54 PM UTC-4, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
> On Sun, 28 May 2017 23:43:27 +0000 (UTC), Ted <stree...@gmail.com>
> wrote:

>
> >Christopher A. Lee <c....@fairpoint.net> wrote:
> >> On Sun, 28 May 2017 22:54:46 +0000 (UTC), Ted <stree...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> <Astero...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZR8LffnS3rE
> >>>>
> >>>> The people who claim that a pattern of metal doesn't exist there, that
> >>>> it's all random, have never seen this video and have never taken detector
> >>>> to the site and marked them off with ribbons. The fact of the matter
> >>>> is, the pattern does exist. It's there. I don't have to argue it, it's
> >>>> there and it's proven.
> >>>
> >>> What's the Durupinar site?
> >>
> >> Where some loonies imagine the ark has been found.
> >

> >Thanks Christopher. Poor psychotic Asteroid7. It's kinda sad.
>
> He believes a con artist called Ron Wyatt who "found" all sorts of
> Biblical remains, not just the ark, including iron chariot wheels in
> the Red Sea which "proves" the Exodus story.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Wyatt

Excellent article which leads to other articles and shows what a
phony baloney and liar Ron Wyatt was. It also mentions some of the
churches (mostly Evangelical) that dumped him when they learned what
a fraud he was.

[hypatiab7]

No, a fraud like Christianity.

[Kurt Nicklas]

"Global Warming" is part of your religion, isn't it?

IC | XC
-------
NI | KA

[Christopher A. Lee]

What "fraud", liar?

>No, a fraud like Christianity.

He's insane.

[Christopher A. Lee]

McShitforbrains McCoy hasn't done any - his "I was there" nonsense is
clearly an unattributed cut'n'paste, in a completely different style.

>Is that why you dropped out of college - so you could go to Turkey?
>What a loser.

Why should anybody with ore than half a brain need to go there and
"verify" something that never hppened because it was a sequence of
physical and other impossibilities?

He's insane - not just because he believes that, but because of his
obsession with it that has made him attack people over it for two
decades.

[Kurt Nicklas]

Can't handle seeing your 'article of faith' being attacked, huh?

> >No, a fraud like Christianity.
>
> He's insane.

You're a coward.

[Kurt Nicklas]

On Tuesday, May 30, 2017 at 8:02:36 AM UTC-4, hypatiab7 wrote:

http://manhattancontrarian.com/blog/2017/3/10/last-gasp-of-the-global-warming-scam-treating-you-like-an-idiot

[Christopher A. Lee]

It was also the obsessive liar's usual distortion.

I doubt anybody gives a flying fuck about a "pattern of metal". The
flood story is a succession of physical impossibilities - and in any
case, boats of that era didn't use nails but wooden pegs.

Nails had to be forged by a smith before the advent of wire nails in
the 1800s, but that particular nonsense is just one more impossibility

As usual, the certifiable lunatic starts with the presumption that it
actually happened and tries to rationalise it with nonsense so
transparent it insults the intelligence.

Which he then imagines confirm it in spite of all the impossibilities.

[Christopher A. Lee]

But McShitforbrains McCoy claims he's been there. Or at least his
unattributed cut'n'pasting does.

[Malcolm McMahon]

On Monday, 29 May 2017 20:07:20 UTC+1, Astero...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Monday, May 29, 2017 at 11:23:13 AM UTC-7, Malte Runz wrote:

> > On Sun, 28 May 2017 15:18:17 -0700 (PDT), Astero...@yahoo.com

> > wrote:
> >
> > >https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZR8LffnS3rE
> > >
> > >The people who claim that a pattern of metal doesn't exist there, that it's all random, have never seen this video and have never taken detector to the site and marked them off with ribbons. The fact of the matter is, the pattern does exist. It's there. I don't have to argue it, it's there and it's proven.
> >

> > "Proven". Bullshit.
> > At 1:56, when the guy filming, starts speculating wildly, the guy with
> > the metal detector (John) says it all:
> > "It doesn't necessarily have to be associated with any vertical
> > structure. Just the remains of some iron."
> > And the guy with the camera tried to make John say they're evenly
> > spaced, but he really never confirms it.
> > From around 5:02 to 5:12 John gets five beeps, four of them pretty
> > close to each other, the fifth is about twice the distance away, and
> > the camera dude goes "John, what more do we need!"
> > I could come up with a whole lot of things John and the dude need to
> > 'prove' that they have found iron nails that held together a giant
> > wooden boat, now petrified, resting on the slopes of a volcano, after
> > having been carried down from the top on a river of molten rock.
> >
> > If you consider that video 'proof' of the Ark, you have no choice but
> > to accept evolution and common descent considering the quality and
> > quantity of the evidence supporting it. But then again, you're a
> > dishonest creationist, with no relevant education and no intention to
> > learn the truth about the world.
>
> Except that even Astronaut Jim Irwin said he found a pattern out there that made it "seem like it's manmade."
>

The human brain has a powerful ability to find patterns where none exist. The constellations are a particular tribute to it.

And I dare say Jim Irwin understands that many things "seem like" they have an artificial pattern where none exists.

It goes back to survival paranoia. Safer to find patterns where none exist than to miss them when they do.

[Vincent Maycock]

On Mon, 29 May 2017 20:49:55 -0700 (PDT), Astero...@yahoo.com

wrote:

>On Monday, May 29, 2017 at 4:24:50 PM UTC-7, Vincent Maycock wrote:
>> On Mon, 29 May 2017 12:04:06 -0700 (PDT), Astero...@yahoo.com
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Monday, May 29, 2017 at 7:54:37 AM UTC-7, Vincent Maycock wrote:
>> >> On Sun, 28 May 2017 22:53:03 -0700 (PDT), Astero...@yahoo.com
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >On Sunday, May 28, 2017 at 4:59:10 PM UTC-7, Vincent Maycock wrote:
>> >> >> On Sun, 28 May 2017 15:18:17 -0700 (PDT), Astero...@yahoo.com
>> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZR8LffnS3rE
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >The people who claim that a pattern of metal doesn't exist there, that it's all random, have never seen this video and have never taken detector to the site and marked them off with ribbons.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Have you done that? If so, where's your own video? ... (not a video
>> >> >> of, say, John Baumgardner walking around at random -- someone who, by
>> >> >> the way no longer believes it's the ark)?
>> >> >
>> >> >By the way, John Baumgardner said he was convinced of it being the Ark having used a metal detector. And John Baumgardner said that he didn't believe it was the Ark having used a dowsing rod. Since you saw John Baumgardner using a metal detector, how do you explain that?
>> >>
>> >> I doubt he lives in such a self-contradictory world. Baumgardner
>> >> doesn't believe it's the ark on any grounds.
>> >
>> >But John Baumgardner does live in a self-contradictory world.
>>
>> Cite, please.
>>
>> >I ask you again, did you see Baumgardner use a metal detector, or was it a dowsing rod?
>>
>> Neither; he just says he doesn't believe in it.
>
>Really?

Really. Here's what he said on the Tentmaker site:

"Regarding my position on the Durupinar site, the core drilling we
performed in 1988 settled the issue as far as I am concerned--the site
is a natural formation, nothing more, produced by a mud slide as mud
flowed around a ridge-shaped block of basement rock that is still
present inside the resulting boat-shaped form"

>"Even Baumgardner, to his later embarrassment, was initially taken in by the false claims attributed to this ‘instrument’[dowsing rod/molecular frequency generator]. [http://creation.com/special-report-amazing-ark-expose]
>
>Reads the same expose: "A standard beach combing type metal detector (the type with a disc-shaped detector head on the end of a long pole) ‘hot spots’ were indeed found, but these were randomly distributed and not in a regular pattern along lines."

So how do you explain the lack of "a regular pattern along lines"?

>
>But as you can see from the posted video, Baumgardner determined that the formation was Noah's Ark after using a metal detector. And, from the video, it is quite obvious that the pattern is manmade. Even Astronaut Jim Irwin says that:
>
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cOkSn9dBavQ

The late Jim Irwin was a YEC; of course he would want to say that.

>> >> http://www.tentmaker.org/WAR/BaumgardnerLetter.html
>> >
>> >The man who runs "tentmaker" put me in contact with John Baumgardner so I had the opportunity to discuss some of these things, and in particular the metal detection scan that he did. In fact, I brought up the video of him using a White's metal detector. At that point John Baumgardner ceased communicating with me. So you see, he knows what's up.

Don't you think that, since he's a YEC, he would want this "ark" to
be authentic?

>> What's "up" that would motivate a young earth creationist to say this
>> isn't the ark?
>
>What's up is that I presented the contradictory evidence.

Which has debunked by the very sites you're trying to quote in your
favor.

> Baumgardner says Dowsing rods, and he used a metal detector, that's what's up.

I think it's a question more of time than type of detector used. He
initially thought the site was authentic, but later thought better of
it and changed his mind.

[Malte Runz]

On Tue, 30 May 2017 08:02:25 -0500, Christopher A. Lee
<c....@fairpoint.net> wrote:

>On Tue, 30 May 2017 04:27:19 -0700 (PDT), hypatiab7
><hypa...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>On Sunday, May 28, 2017 at 6:18:19 PM UTC-4, Astero...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZR8LffnS3rE
>>>
>>> The people who claim that a pattern of metal doesn't exist there, that
>>> it's all random, have never seen this video and have never taken detector
>>> to the site and marked them off with ribbons. The fact of the matter is,
>>> the pattern does exist. It's there. I don't have to argue it, it's there and
>>> it's proven.
>>
>>You're repeating your Ron Wyatt crap again. No one cares, except to tell
>>you that you are full of it and disprove every word you repeat over and over.
>
>It was also the obsessive liar's usual distortion.
>
>I doubt anybody gives a flying fuck about a "pattern of metal". The

>flood story is a succession of physical impossibilities - ...

You're ruining the fun!


> ... and in any

>case, boats of that era didn't use nails but wooden pegs.

I can't find it again, but I read that somebody had done the
calculations, and concluded that a wooden structure of that size,
would crumble under it's own weight sitting on land. Iron nails
wouldn't make any difference. Probably make it even worse.

>
>Nails had to be forged by a smith before the advent of wire nails in
>the 1800s, but that particular nonsense is just one more impossibility

Why don't they simply play the 'omnipotent god can do anything card'?

>
>As usual, the certifiable lunatic starts with the presumption that it
>actually happened and tries to rationalise it with nonsense so
>transparent it insults the intelligence.

They're writing God out of the script.

>
>Which he then imagines confirm it in spite of all the impossibilities.

Water canopy, my ass(7)!

--
Malte Runz

[Astero...@yahoo.com]

On Tuesday, May 30, 2017 at 5:46:18 AM UTC-7, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
> On Tue, 30 May 2017 04:29:24 -0700 (PDT), hypatiab7
> <hypa...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >On Sunday, May 28, 2017 at 7:52:41 PM UTC-4, Astero...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >> On Sunday, May 28, 2017 at 4:39:25 PM UTC-7, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
> >> > On Sun, 28 May 2017 22:54:46 +0000 (UTC), Ted <stree...@gmail.com>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> > ><Astero...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> > >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZR8LffnS3rE
> >> > >>
> >> > >> The people who claim that a pattern of metal doesn't exist there, that
> >> > >> it's all random, have never seen this video and have never taken detector
> >> > >> to the site and marked them off with ribbons. The fact of the matter
> >> > >> is, the pattern does exist. It's there. I don't have to argue it, it's
> >> > >> there and it's proven.
> >> > >
> >> > >What's the Durupinar site?
> >> >
> >> > Where some loonies imagine the ark has been found.
> >>
> >> What on site investigation have you done?
>
> McShitforbrains McCoy hasn't done any - his "I was there" nonsense is
> clearly an unattributed cut'n'paste, in a completely different style.

I was there. What on site investigation have you done?

[Marvin Sebourn]

Asteroid:

> I was there. What on site investigation have you done?

I was once at a premier astrophysics lab. I looked around, investigating, but with no training or background knowledge I was absolutely unequipped to make any cogent comments on the facility or the work done there.

Asteroid, you say you've been to the Durupinar site--twice, I believe. How are you equipped to comment upon the legitimacy of the Durupinar site, based upon your observations? What is your level and extent of training and education in geology, marine architecture, and archaeology?

Or are you only like me at the astrophysics lab?

Marvin Sebourn
osugeo...@aol.com

[Astero...@yahoo.com]

What does this prove? You have a quote where Baumgardner says that he used a dowsing rod to find a pattern of metal, but the video shows him using a metal detector, and then you have him saying that the formation is Noah's Ark. Then later he says that the care drilling settled the issue, yet there's another quote where he says that core drilling isn't sufficient enough to make any determination. I ask, which Baumgardner are we to believe. His own words cancel himself out.

the site
> is a natural formation, nothing more, produced by a mud slide as mud
> flowed around a ridge-shaped block of basement rock that is still
> present inside the resulting boat-shaped form"
>
>
> >"Even Baumgardner, to his later embarrassment, was initially taken in by the false claims attributed to this ‘instrument’[dowsing rod/molecular frequency generator]. [http://creation.com/special-report-amazing-ark-expose]
> >
> >Reads the same expose: "A standard beach combing type metal detector (the type with a disc-shaped detector head on the end of a long pole) ‘hot spots’ were indeed found, but these were randomly distributed and not in a regular pattern along lines."
>
> So how do you explain the lack of "a regular pattern along lines"?

Andrew Snelling, who is responsible for the above conclusion, namely that the metal is "randomly distributed," obviously is contradicted by the video of Baumgardner with a metal detector and his early conclusion, and by the ribboning of the metal, of which Baumgardner was a participant. Additionally, I presented video footage of the pattern of metal being found to Snelling, and he told me that he "had the best evidence that was available at the time. "

>
> >
> >But as you can see from the posted video, Baumgardner determined that the formation was Noah's Ark after using a metal detector. And, from the video, it is quite obvious that the pattern is manmade. Even Astronaut Jim Irwin says that:
> >
> >https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cOkSn9dBavQ
>
> The late Jim Irwin was a YEC; of course he would want to say that.

But there's no reason as to why he would want to say that unless it were true.

>
> >> >> http://www.tentmaker.org/WAR/BaumgardnerLetter.html
> >> >
> >> >The man who runs "tentmaker" put me in contact with John Baumgardner so I had the opportunity to discuss some of these things, and in particular the metal detection scan that he did. In fact, I brought up the video of him using a White's metal detector. At that point John Baumgardner ceased communicating with me. So you see, he knows what's up.
>
> Don't you think that, since he's a YEC, he would want this "ark" to
> be authentic?

I think he had a vendetta against Ron Wyatt. You see, the governor of the area said that Baumgardner asked him to be declared the founder of Noah's Ark - as his credentials as a scientist from Los Alamos would give the site credibility. Later on, on video Baumgardner told Wyatt that he had the governor under his locked up.

>
> >> What's "up" that would motivate a young earth creationist to say this
> >> isn't the ark?
> >
> >What's up is that I presented the contradictory evidence.
>
> Which has debunked by the very sites you're trying to quote in your
> favor.
>
> > Baumgardner says Dowsing rods, and he used a metal detector, that's what's up.
>
> I think it's a question more of time than type of detector used. He
> initially thought the site was authentic, but later thought better of
> it and changed his mind.

Yes, but he made the determination that it was Noah's Ark by using a metal detector.

[Vincent Maycock]

On Wed, 31 May 2017 09:17:15 -0700 (PDT), Astero...@yahoo.com

Cite, please.

> I ask, which Baumgardner are we to believe. His own words cancel himself out.

Only if you mash his later views together with his initial views.

>the site
>> is a natural formation, nothing more, produced by a mud slide as mud
>> flowed around a ridge-shaped block of basement rock that is still
>> present inside the resulting boat-shaped form"
>>
>>
>> >"Even Baumgardner, to his later embarrassment, was initially taken in by the false claims attributed to this ‘instrument’[dowsing rod/molecular frequency generator]. [http://creation.com/special-report-amazing-ark-expose]
>> >
>> >Reads the same expose: "A standard beach combing type metal detector (the type with a disc-shaped detector head on the end of a long pole) ‘hot spots’ were indeed found, but these were randomly distributed and not in a regular pattern along lines."
>>
>> So how do you explain the lack of "a regular pattern along lines"?
>
>Andrew Snelling, who is responsible for the above conclusion, namely that the metal is "randomly distributed," obviously is contradicted by the video of Baumgardner with a metal detector

I saw that video and didn't look like any lines were being formed.

>and his early conclusion, and by the ribboning of the metal, of which Baumgardner was a participant. Additionally, I presented video footage of the pattern of metal being found to Snelling,

Could we see that video, please?

> and he told me that he "had the best evidence that was available at the time. "

Do you have a copy of that email? I don't know of anyone besides you
who's of the opinion that Snelling changed his mind about his initial
assessment of the site.

>> >But as you can see from the posted video, Baumgardner determined that the formation was Noah's Ark after using a metal detector. And, from the video, it is quite obvious that the pattern is manmade. Even Astronaut Jim Irwin says that:
>> >
>> >https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cOkSn9dBavQ
>>
>> The late Jim Irwin was a YEC; of course he would want to say that.
>
>But there's no reason as to why he would want to say that unless it were true.

Yes there would be; it would help "prove the Bible is true," which is
what YECs like to try to do.

>
>>
>> >> >> http://www.tentmaker.org/WAR/BaumgardnerLetter.html
>> >> >
>> >> >The man who runs "tentmaker" put me in contact with John Baumgardner so I had the opportunity to discuss some of these things, and in particular the metal detection scan that he did. In fact, I brought up the video of him using a White's metal detector. At that point John Baumgardner ceased communicating with me. So you see, he knows what's up.
>>
>> Don't you think that, since he's a YEC, he would want this "ark" to
>> be authentic?
>
>I think he had a vendetta against Ron Wyatt.

So is Baumgardner a fraud like Ron Wyatt?

> You see, the governor of the area said that Baumgardner asked him to be declared the founder of Noah's Ark - as his credentials as a scientist from Los Alamos would give the site credibility. Later on, on video Baumgardner told Wyatt that he had the governor under his locked up.
>
>
>>
>> >> What's "up" that would motivate a young earth creationist to say this
>> >> isn't the ark?
>> >
>> >What's up is that I presented the contradictory evidence.
>>
>> Which has debunked by the very sites you're trying to quote in your
>> favor.
>>
>> > Baumgardner says Dowsing rods, and he used a metal detector, that's what's up.
>>
>> I think it's a question more of time than type of detector used. He
>> initially thought the site was authentic, but later thought better of
>> it and changed his mind.
>
>Yes, but he made the determination that it was Noah's Ark by using a metal detector.

The fact remains that he doesn't think it's the ark for any reason,
dowsing-related or not.

[Smiler]

Unlike you, he believed in his conclusion _before_ he went there. His trip
only gave him more confirmation bias.

--
Smiler,
The godless one. a.a.# 2279
All gods are tailored to order. They're made to
exactly fit the prejudices of their believers.

[Smiler]

On Wed, 31 May 2017 16:28:02 +0000, Bob Officer wrote:

> Ted <stree...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Bob Officer <no_e...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>> Ted <stree...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Bob Officer <no_e...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>> Christopher A. Lee <c....@fairpoint.net> wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, 29 May 2017 20:43:30 +0200, Malte Runz
>>>>>> <noyo...@notgetting.it> wrote:

>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sun, 28 May 2017 23:57:53 -0700 (PDT), Astero...@yahoo.com
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Sunday, May 28, 2017 at 11:02:03 PM UTC-7, Cloud Hobbit wrote:

>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, May 28, 2017 at 3:18:19 PM UTC-7, Astero...@yahoo.com

>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZR8LffnS3rE
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The people who claim that a pattern of metal doesn't exist
>>>>>>>>>> there, that it's all random, have never seen this video and
>>>>>>>>>> have never taken detector to the site and marked them off with
>>>>>>>>>> ribbons. The fact of the matter is, the pattern does exist.
>>>>>>>>>> It's there. I don't have to argue it, it's there and it's
>>>>>>>>>> proven.
>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> The pattern may be, but it is not what the believers claim.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> it is a natural rock
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No, it's not made of rock. ...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Petrified wood is also rock. So what is it, if it's not "made of
>>>>>>> rock"?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ... If you want to take something of archeology and make it into
>>>>>>>> geology, it'd be more of a conglomerate of mud and petrified
>>>>>>>> rock.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Petrified rock" [giggles]
>>>>>>

>>>>>> He must be stoned.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Now there, be gneiss to him. After all he doesn't have any marble.
>>>>
>>>> LOL.
>>>>
>>> Does he know he is full of schist?
>>
>> LOL. *Very* clever, Bob. :)
>>
> Less geology puns, Mho better?

That one's hard to beat.

[Marvin Sebourn]

Mho better, Bob? Are we moving into electrical / electronics puns, currently? Of course, we could stick with Moh better...

Marvin Sebourn
osugeo...@aol.com