[AgThorn]

great summary ... thanks!!!

I remember some other photo's, research done that seemed to be about a separate site for Noah's ark. It was up in the mountain, few have journeyed, but was emerging from a glacier and broken in half .. need to see where that was, but I don't think it was Wyatt. Wondering if this too was 'questionable'.

I actually bought a great video on The Search for Mt Sinai that was excellent and I have lent it out to someone. I am not thinking that was Wyatt either, but now I am suspicious. Anyway, the proof was pretty solid that Mt Sinai was actually found in Saudi Arabia. Will have to get that video back to give source.

[AgThorn]

found it, the Mt Sinai video reference I mean ... very very believable ... haven't searched for anyone refuting it.

http://www.explorationfilms.com/folders.asp?action=display&record=20

[Stultis]

I remember some other photo's, research done that seemed to be about a separate site for Noah's ark. It was up in the mountain, few have journeyed, but was emerging from a glacier and broken in half .. need to see where that was, but I don't think it was Wyatt.

The site you're thinking of is probably the same discussed in the article leading this thread. (Sorry, but it's just rocks too.) Wyatt's site is some 15-20 miles South of Ararat, in the foothills.

The theory that the ark has broken in half is (or used to be, last I knew) a popular one among believers. I think this is because it allows them to reconcile otherwise irreconcilable sightings.

If you ignore the prior absurdity of an oceangoing ship on top of a mountain, a wooden ship the size of the titanic strong and watertight enough to ride cataclysmic seas for months, etc, etc, etc, then the idea of the ark being broken is not implausible. Different part of a glacier move at different speeds. Although, the way glaciers usually flow, I'd think it would be more likely for an object like the ark to be sheared along the horizontal axis rather than (or at least in addition to) the vertical.