Noah's Ark has been found

Cornuke is accused - and quite possibly guilty - of trying to "steal" the credit for Ron Wyatt's "discovery" of Mount Sinai.In short what we have is a fantastic and implausible claim from someone who appears to be unreliable and untrustworthy.I won't prejudge this but I certainly won't beleive it unless the evidence turns out to be very good.

Pointing out that there are strong reasons for doubting the claim is not prejudging it. Prejudgement requires reaching a conclusion, which I have not done.f

Aside ftom the variosu direct allegatiosn of fraud against Wyatt, we have:The "Blood of Jesus" claimWyatt's claim to be the original discoverer of the ivory pomegranate which until recently was thought to be the only objected surviving from the original Temple.Both of these are fairly strong evidence of fraud or dishonesty on Wyatt's part - the latter in particular because it has been revealed that the pomegranate's "connection" to the Temple was an inscription added in modern times (in the unlikely event that Wyatt told the truth he is implicated in that fraud).As for incompetence we have:The supposed "land bridge" at Nuweiba, based on misinterpreting the data.The whole sorry saga of Wyatt's attempted rerite of the Egyptian 18th Dynasty. It is hard to imagine how somebody incapable of reading a popular level book could be considered a serious source. The whole thing is a complete mess based on ignoring contrary evidence.The inability to admit that Wyatt's "molecular frequency generator" is a worthless dowsing device. (Here's a hint guys, connecting the dowsing rods to some electonic stuff that doesn't do anything doesn't change the fact that it's still dowsing).(And I will add that I have discussed all these points in the past and I'm happy to discuss them again - if any Wyatt supporter dares).So what we have is amazing claims backed by almost no significant evidence - coming from people who are certainly incompetent and very likely dishonest. Those of us who doubt Wyatt have nothing to be ashamed of.
o

We have pictures of coral formations that might contain wheels and axles - whether they really contina anything is not known. The only hint that they contain anything was a claim from the Wyatt camp of rust. Which would not be the case if they contained Ancient Egyptian chariot wheels because they did not use iron in their wheels.The "ark site" is a rock formation, as even creationist invetigators admit. The so-called ballast stones have no demonstrabel connection with the Ark. And a beach is just a beach.If these are the best you have to offer, then you have nothing. The evidence that Wyatt is a fraud is better. The evidence that Wyatt and Moeller are incompetent is far better.h

quote:

---

I am not claiming to have proven anything, but imo the evidence produced by me, Lysimacus and others was sufficient to claim it as a viable hypothesis worthy of some scientific and archeological significance.

---

Which evidence was that ? The coral foramtions ? They weren't very good (if they contained wheels at all they were likely not from chariots) and everything else was worse.

quote:

---

I am not however studied up enough on the Egyptian dynasties to debate you on that.

---

Don't worry, it doesn't take much to see that Wyatt and Moeller don't know what they are talking about on that subject. If you really think that Moeller is a careful investigator perhaps you coud explain why he fell for that load of rubbish. Didn't he check Wyatt's claims at all ?>

Wyatt supporters tend to have a...unique... way of assessing evidenceFor instance on the list of "similarities: that supposedly support the idea that Senmut was Moses Lysimachus was incredibly impressed that Josephus stated that Moses had lead an army fighting in Nubia and that there was some evidence that Senmut had also served as a soldier fighting in Nubia. Never mind that the stories didn't even match up, rar we couldn't even say that it was the same war and that armies even at that time tended to include more than a few men.Presumably he also thinks that General Montgomery was Henry the 5th - after all, we know that both actually lead British forces fighting in France....