Talk:Ararat anomaly: Difference between revisions

NPOV tag

Good thing you tagged the article with a {NPOV} as it is really disputed in real life. -- Svest 00:24, May 29, 2005 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up™}

Would the discovery vindicate the whole of the Christian Bible, or would the discovery merely vindicate the old testament (or even just a portion of the old testament)?

Family Folk History

My great-uncle, the late Vahan Pampayan, used to tell about Noah's ark on Mt. Ararat:

After the flood, Noah and his family found the earth devoid of life - so they dismantled the ark to build dwellings at the base of the mountain. Here, Noah planted vineyards and had more children. These children stayed home, at the base of Mt. Ararat, and did not have their language corrupted at the Tower of Babel. So it is that the Armenian language is the original language of The Garden of Eden.

I cannot reconcile this story with modern linguistic and anthropological studies that say Armenians are Aryan. But this is the story I heard at the feet of my Grandfather's brother-in-law, who had been there.

• John Elder 06:07, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What is the dispute?

There is nothing on this page which indicates a dispute. Please remove the NPOV tag

• Edit boldly - you could have done this!!! I zapped the phrase about conspiracy theories and then the NPOV tag - while sceptics may not accept the claim that this is Noah's Ark, the article does not claim it to be the ark. It discusses the anomaly in a WP manner, without taking sides. Some external references to sceptics would help make this an even more solid article, though. John Elder 17:46, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Voting for deletion

I want to start the discussion here before putting this in for Votes for Deletion.

I think this entry and Noah's Ark hoaxes and misconceptions are equally POV attempts to create "articles" which implicitly support one point of view. To speak of "Noah's Ark hoaxes" is to beg the question whether they are hoaxes. To refer to the "Ararat anomaly" is to beg the question whether there is one. The present article includes some NPOV language, but the overall effect of giving this "topic" its own page is rather like giving a page to "Evidence George Bush is the devil"—even if you carefully balance pro- and anti-devil evidence, the article remains inherently POV. Besides being inherently POV, the article has more than enough regular POV language, always with a dash of NPOV. Thus, we get a whole slew of POV links to bogus archaeologists* with one "sceptical" link thrown in at the end.

(*Oh, how unfair! But does even one of them have a degree in archaeology? A BA? The major proponent of the "Ararat Anomaly" was a nurse anesthetist for crying out loud!)

In any case, I don't see why hoaxes, misconceptions and anomalies can't all be folded into sections in Noah's Ark?

Any comments before I list this for deletion and start the process?

Let me also note that all this talk of secret photos of the "Ararat anomaly" should have lost its interest when dozens of visitors have visited the site on foot and taken pictures. Except for a link the article never mentions this. This isn't the "face on the moon." This is talking about the Great Wall of China as an space-imaging perplexity—Lordy, what ever could that long snaky thing be? Lectiodifficilior 06:40, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• I think the article is a masterpiece of NPOV-ness. Would Lectiodifficilior please be specific about the POV that he thinks this article is putting forward? Would he please say which links constitute the "whole slew of POV links"? -- RHaworth 08:21, 2005 Jun 26 (UTC)

the coordinates given seem to be wrong. at least, they point to an area significantly west of Ararat. dab (ᛏ) 3 July 2005 14:04 (UTC)

Re-write

Re-wrote this article as it had major problems.

First, it confused two separate sites, the anomaly and a quite separate place called Durupinar - they'er almost 20 miles apart.

Second, it needed tightening up, which I've done.

PiCo 04:07, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Durupinar

Note. I slapped "merge" tags on Durupinar and Ararat anomaly before I saw PiCo's claim that the two sites are different. I have left the tags in place because, even if there are two sites (and I am slightly sceptical of that), I think it would be better to combine the articles so that the two sites can be compared and contrasted better, since both sites have been identified as Noah's Ark.

If you really feel they should be separate articles: the external links to the images on Rex Geissler's pages should be moved to Durupinar and not pretend to illustrate a different Ararat anomaly. Some photos of the Ararat anomaly would be welcomed.

Is it a coincidence that PiCo and Tuckerresearch have been contributing in this area on the same day? -- RHaworth 08:40, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

• They are seperate sites that are often misten for each other because of the ark connection. They are close to each other but close only counts in, well, you know. I suggest the tages be removed but an additonal section be added to properly explain the misconception and differences, as well as a like to each other in the See Also section. Pattersonc(Talk) 9:45 AM, Sunday; January 29 2006 (EST)

Durupinar vs. Ararat

Yes, it is just a coincidence that PICO and I worked on it the same day. I was working on David Fasold while RHayworth was changing the Durupinar and Ararat anomaly links. I had noticed that someone had confused the two. Ark on Ararat proponents and Ark elsewhere proponents are very fiercely adamant that their opponents are wrong. I think it best to keep Durupinar and the Ararat anamoly separate, and mention the varying claims at Noah's Ark, with links to Mount Ararat, Al Judi, Durupinar, the Ararat anamoly, et cetera there. But that's just me. -- Tuckerresearch 2006-01-28 18:03:14

• In a tricky area like this, please remember to sign your contris with ~~~~. -- RHaworth 19:39, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Just to prove that Tuckerresearch and PiCo are two different people, I support merging Durupinar and the anomaly. :) Have a look at Noah's Ark - a lot of recent work there, including a revamped section called The Search for Noah's Ark. It mentions Durupinar and the anomaly as the two leading contenders for the honour of hosting the Ark. (There's a third, the Ahora Gorge (not sure of the spelling), but it seems to have fallen out of favour in recent years). It has links to Mount Ararat, Durupinar, the Ararat Anomaly, and even Noah's Ark hoaxes and misconceptions, but not to Al Judi. (Perhaps Al Judi exists as Mount Judi or Mount Cudi?) Anyway, I think articles are proliferating a bit too fast, and some merging is called for. Maybe a single article called The search for Naoh's Ark, so that the Noah's Ark article could be shortened? PiCo 08:57, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• I support the merge but I object to any title that mentions Noah - NPOV demands that we allow for those who consider these features to be purely geological. -- RHaworth 11:42, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• I am not totally opposed to a merge, but I think there should be redirects - so if someone looks for Durupinar it goes to "The Search for Noah's Ark" or if they search for Ahora Gorge (which is a gorge on Mount Ararat) they get there or "Mount Ararat" etc - as to RHaworth's suggestion that we take out "Noah," I think that would be pointless. True, some consider it to be purely geological, some don't think Noah or the ark existed, but people are going to look up "Noah's Ark" and "Noah" and "The Search for Noah's Ark" and the like - on the pages, to achieve NPOV that is where you say it's likely just an odd geological formation. To make my point, there is an article on the Priory of Sion, which discusses the medieval Priory much ballyhooed in The DaVinci Code and Holy Blood, Holy Grail - but any objective historian realizes that it was elaborate hoax perpetraded by Pierre Plantard and his ilk. Yet the so-called story of the Priory remains. Another example, Mu and Lemuria are geologically improbable (okay, impossible) but their articles remain. See what I'm trying to get at? TuckerResearch 00:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Any moves on this merge? I say keep it as is - I added a photograph to the Durupinar article -- TuckerResearch 05:56, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Biblical literalism

J.L.Main is right about one thing: the number of Biblical literalist cranks is growing, so I have not reverted his additions to their side of the argument. I suppose that sometimes we have to apply the NPOV principle between science and myth.

In their time, the authors of Genesis would have had very little knowledge of the earth's long term history, they would only have had veroius myths and legends, occasionally vaguely based on historical fact but more often based on tall stories that people believed because they wanted to believe. But if the authors of Genesis had written "um, er, we're not really sure about the history of the earth", Genesis would not have sold. It is like that today, people buy and believe what they want to buy and believe. That is why there are so many elected liars in politics today.

But believers in Biblical literalism cannot be selective. They should read Numbers 31 and pay particular attention to verse 18. Do they really want to believe that God commanded Moses to kill all the Midianite men, boys and married women, but spare the Midianite virgins for Hebrew gratification? They should also read Revelation 22 verse 18 about adding to Biblical prophesies; it might explain to them why there has been so much friction between literalist Christians and literalist followers of the prophet Mohammad.

Most people regard the story of Noah highly for its symbolic value. That is the way it should be. Viewfinder 08:47, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Viewfinder's version vs later versions

I've reverted to Viefinder's version of 6 April as being the last reasonably sensible version. I'm pasting the depeted version as found at 7 April here, with reasons why it's not acceptable in a serious encyclopedia:

A growing number of Biblical literalists, Jews, and Muslims believe that the anomaly is in fact Noah's Ark. However, the anomaly has yet to be explored. An expedition which was to have been mounted to the summit in July 2004 by Honolulu businessman Daniel McGivern was called off when permission was refused by the Turkish authorities (the area is within a restricted military zone) [1]. The McGivern expedition was labelled a "stunt" by National Geographic News, which pointed out that the expedition leader, a Turkish academic named Ahmet Ali Arslan, had previously been accused of faking claimed photographs of the Ark (or anomaly) [2].

(Comment: "A growing number of etc etc believe the anomally is in fqact Noah's Ark." They do? Give a reference for a claim like that please.)

"The "Noah's Ark" claims are not taken seriously by mainstream archaeology, where the object is thought to most likely be rock formation that happens to have the approximate length to width ratio, 6:1, of Noah's Ark as described in Genesis (300 by 50 cubits, while the anomaly is roughly 1,015 by 170 feet), although some have acknowledged that it may be a non-biblical man made structure such as a fortress. The problem with these two positions is that the object seems to have moved since its initial discovery. This could be because its location was not charted accurately in 1949, or else because it was moved by the glacier it is caught in. The second possibility would seem to prove that it is neither a rock formation nor a stationary man made structure.

(Comment: What's this about "some have acknowledged...it may be a fortreess"? No reputable archaeologist would dream of "acknowledging" that anyone would build a fortress far above the snowline, within a glacier, tens of miles from anything worth guarding. Ancient people weren't so stupid. If anyone has a reference from a genuine archaeologist saying this, let us know.)

Sceptics often point to the fact that one cubit is the distance from the tip of a person's middle finger to his/her elbow which is normally about 18 inches, so 300 cubits would be about 450 feet, not 1,015 feet. Supporters of the anomaly being Noah's Ark point to the fact that if the person doing the meeasuring was larger than a normal person the cubits would be larger. There is a theory in some Christian circles that people of Noah's era were 11-13 feet tall on average, so a cubit of the time would not have been 18in but closer to 40in, although mainstream science responds that there is no historical or archaeological evidence in support of this and plenty of evolutionary evidence against it. Others say that object looks bigger than it really is because it is encased in so much ice.

(Comment: The "fact" that "if" Noah were 13 feet tall his cubit would be larger? An "if" is not a fact, it's a speculation. In this case, it's a speculation so far outside accpeted scientific or historical thought as to be laughable. Thje rest6 of this paragraph is equally silly. If anyone wants this to stay in, please produce reputatble citations (which means, not citations from fringe religious sects).

Skeptics further point out that the Ark claim implies that the Genesis flood waters rose to the anomaly's 4,724m elevation, which they claim impossible to achieve with the known water resources on the planet. Supporters often appeal to the theories which are discussed on the flood geology page.

(Comment: Flood geology is a crank belief, and not widely accepted, even in Christian circles. Fringe beliefs that have no business in a mainstream encyclopedia. The bit about the height of the waters of the Flood is case-arging - but we don't need to argue for against the historical reality of the Flood, just to describe the anomally).

The Defence Intelligence Agency, which has custody of the images, has analysed the anomaly as showing "linear facades in the glacial ice underlying more recently accumulated ice and snow" [3].

(Comment: This is about as much as needs to be said). PiCo 11:43, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

If there are no further edits from others, then there will be no further edits from me either. It seemed to me that the water level point was relevant, but I will not re-insert it. As for flood geology, of course I agree that it's crank stuff, but there is a long Wikipedia article about it. Perhaps you should request its deletion. Viewfinder 13:16, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Biblical literalists only?

I've deleted 2 pointless, misleading and NPOV references to biblical literalism. One doesn't have to be a biblical literalist to believe that Noah's Ark existed. Biblical literalism is the belief that ALL of the Bible should be interpreted in its most obvious literal sense. Belief that the Ararat anomaly may be the remains of Noah's Ark is merely acknowledging that ONE select passage of the Bible may be literally true. Referring to biblical literalism falsely equates a specific theory with a wider worldview, and implies that it is only literalist Chrisitans who believe in a worldwide or regional deluge of the area, when in actual fact many non-literalist Christians as well as Jews, Muslims and people of other faiths share the belief. Caleby 12:58, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

No non-literalist Christians believe in a world-wide deluge or in Noah's Ark (or if you know of any, please cite them). Those Jews and Muslims who believe in the deluge and the Ark are equally literalist . PiCo 03:48, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Rejectors of "Durupinar Claims" is not universal

Dear PiCo, I agree that there are those who reject the claims of Wyatt, but there are plenty who still look to the Durupinar site as viable: Some examples for which I can supply references (but won't right now for sake of time) are: WAR (obviously), Don Patten (author/researcher), Dave Deal (author/researcher), Henri Nissen (author), Anchor Stone (researchers), Bill Shea (former senior archeologist for the Seventh Day Adventist Church-- now retired), Dr. Salih Bayraktutan (geologist over the Durupinar site working out of Ataturk University in Erzurum, Turkey, now geologist for BOTAS), etc.... these are just a few that come to mind of the top of my head. The broad brush statement that you were defending is misleading and incorrect. I recommend that the subject of who supports Durupinar really has no place in an article about the Ararat Anomaly which is really only supported by a subset of those looking for the Ark on Agri Dagi. Firewall 02:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)