Satellite Sleuth Closes in on Noah's Ark Mystery

space.com ^ | 09 March 2006 | Leonard David

[S0122017]

BTW 1) I do not believe that that object really is a ship (way too large). 2) I do believe that it can't be ruled out that it is artifical, it may be something like a fort, which actually was suggested by one researcher. 3) I do not believe there really was a flood that covered every bit of land, but tsunamis and flooding that destroyed coastal city's of ancient human civilisations worldwide. 4) I do not believe all animals where put aboard a ship. I can believe that Noah/Utnapistim saved pairs/part of his farm stock, and perhaps some other market animals.

Also there have been two ships found on Ararat before, one case verified the other almost certain, and several anchors-stones. Unfortunately it was mostly ignored by main stream science and religions alike. The scientist ignored them because of the Noah's arc 'touch' and abrahamic religions ignored it because the ships wheren't big enough to cary all animals (good luck finding one :) ).

[S0122017]

DigitalGlobe's QuickBird commercial remote sensing satellite imaged the Mt. Ararat "anomaly" in 2003. This image has never seen by the public until now. The anomaly is surrounded below by very rugged-looking strato-volcanic rock; however, the texture of the feature in question is relatively smooth and appears to be made of a different substance. Credit: DigitalGlobe


Annotated QuickBird image rendered by former satellite intelligence analyst, Rod Franz, now Training Manager for Imagery Analysis with Las Vegas-based SunTek Media Group, an intelligence community/Pentagon contractor. The anomaly’s length has been put at 1,015 feet using special imagery analyst software that measures each pixel in the QuickBird image. Each pixel is 2 feet in length or .62 meters. Credit: Rod Franz


Declassified Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) Keyhole-9 satellite image of a panoramic shot of Mt. Ararat, taken on Dec. 20, 1973. The "anomaly" is circled in red by researcher Porcher Taylor. Several years ago, the CIA declassified over 55,000 satellite images of various places around the world, including this image. Credit: CIA/Porcher Taylor


Canadian Space Agency's RADARSAT-1 image of Mt. Ararat. This radar image is 8-meter resolution, the highest commercial capability in the world. Circled in red is the "anomaly" location on the northwest corner of Ararat's Western Plateau at 15,300 feet. Since a radar satellite is not optical, but shoots back radio beams of solid structures, this image confirms, according to researchers, that the anomaly is not the effect of shadows. Credit: RADARSAT-1 data (c) Canadian Space Agency. Processed and distributed by RADARSAT International Inc., a subsidiary of MDA.

[S0122017]

ping

[mtbopfuyn]

I tend to agree with you. What's really annoying is every time some local claims he's seen it, when asked to take anyone to it they suddenly can't remember where it was.

[S0122017]

This is how the site looked anno 1949. Experts claim that whatever it is, it has been sliding.
An image from the June 19, 1949 U.S. Air Force Mission that captured a panoramic view of what is simply called "the Ararat Anomaly".


This is how it looked in 2000:


The first sat really does look ship-like. And it really does look like it slipped.
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/planetearth/noahs_ark_010823-2.html

[S0122017]

Last but not least, an image of another exposed anomaly laying next to it. The Trinity Foundation claims it could be a part of the ship broken off. You could also see it as a part of a fort or a large stone. Still, the color is different from the rest of the mountain and it looks a little bit like the back of a ship. In later photo's it is no longer visible and probably covered in snow and/or slipped further downhill.



According to press materials supplied by Shamrock -- The Trinity Corporation, this satellite view shows Noah's Ark jutting out from the snow on Mt. Ararat. Image Courtesy of Digital Globe

[S0122017]

Im not a creationist but i want some folk here to discuss Noah's arc... So.. feel like joining? Otherwise i went to all this trouble of posting for nothing .

[sit-rep]

Friggin snow drifts...my high school education tells me that.

[trashcanbred]

It looks like a ridge to me but I am not an "expert". Why doesn't someone just go there and settle this thing once and for all.

[showme_the_Glory]

No expedition has ever made the trek to Ararat to dig down with a few test holes to see what it really is?

[Lee N. Field]

Ummm. It's been a long time since the Genesis flood. Likely there's nothing left.

[RoadTest]

I'll talk about it. The issue is of fundamental (there's that word!) importance. Tied to a potential discovery of the ark is the fact of creation and the Bible's timeline, as well as the factualness of Biblical accounts, which are, today, widely discounted as fairy tales for Sunday school chidren.

Not only is it intimately associated with the evolution/creation controversy, but it would stand as another witness of God's truthfulness.

[Glacier Honey]

Looks like a ridge to me to - one that has been affected by the weather over the years.

It it was "Noah's Arc", it would have been moved down the mountain by now and broken to pieces by the glacier or snow field.

Just my humble opinion.

Why not just send someone up there.

[VanDeKoik]

You've got tot be kidding me.

Is this supposed to be a serious news story?

[arkham]

That can't be Noah's Arc...cause I saw the Arc in my toast just this morning.

[trashcanbred]

Well... do you see an ark in these photos? I am no expert but I have seen a lot of satellite pictures of mountain ranges and this looks like... a ridge. A simple ridge with some outcropping.

For years they have been saying that the ark is on Mt. Ararat. So if this is that important why not send a serious expedition there to prove it once and for all. If it does prove to be true, then you are right it would really make people rethink the account of the flood.

[Dog Gone]

Photo evidence does not lie.

[Glacier Honey]

Exactly. I am a Christian but I don't see an ARC in these photos.

Either way I would think what ever belief you support you would want to prove to the other that this was or was not the arc

[LIConFem]

"Exactly. I am a Christian but I don't see an ARC in these photos. "

I see an arc (albeit with a rather large radius). But I don't see an ark.

< /smartarse> ;o)

[Aliska]

That's roughly 2-3 miles up. It's hard to imagine water going that high. In the 60's or 70's I had a cheap paperback book I read about this, a couple of guys got close to something high on some mountain in the region and took photographs of it. It looked like a darkened, preserved wooden box of some kind.

Now I realize that a lot of those books are probably fake, photos could have been fake, can't remember the title, but the photos do stick in my mind. That was when a few people could still get in there.

It would be pretty neat to find the preserved remains of something that ancient; I know a lot of places in the OT have been confirmed, but it mostly remains a mystery when you try to prove anything using archaeology.

Who was it, Edgar Cayce or someone who suggested that after the flood (which doesn't seem to have covered the entire earth as we know it, some argue how it could have been possible) that the earth shifted on its axis, the waters were concentrated at each pole where they froze? Still, if they all melted, I don't know if the seas would rise that high. There has to be more to it. It seems scientists drilling cores in the ice at the poles seem to think it goes back eons.

The problem seems to be they don't want anybody up there snooping around for religious and other reasons. Turkey is death on anyone who finds ancient artifacts and tries to smuggle them out of the country.

That's about all I can add. I don't like to poke fun at all your hard work, and it does raise a few questions in my mind, but it could be just that, an anomaly, unusual rock formation, etc., a la the face on Mars.