About that Boat - Noah's Ark

kendemyer wrote:"Can I get a witness? Yes, and more than one!
re: accounts of ark sitings throughout history
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~arktracker/ark/Sightings.html"Having at one time been interested in UFOS, the eyewitness accounts cited in the above web page reminded me exactly of the unsubstantiated and unverifiable types of eyewitness testimony that fill book after book about UFOs and alien abductions. A person can find many, many more eyewitnesses reports of people who report to have either visited alien spacecraft willingly or having been on board alien spacecraft as abductees than people who have reported to have personally visited the Ark on Mt. Arat. Given the number of people, who have allegedly either visited or saw the ark, there should exist hard evidence in the form of actual pieces and photos of that can be offered as collaborating evidence of its existence. However, as in case of the UFO eyewitnesses, we have a remarkable lack of any hard evidence despite a number of people claiming to actually visiting it. Even though they shoudl have been well aware of the quite obvious Earth shaking nature of what they were looking at, they somehow forgot to pick up a piece wood, either as evidence or souvenir of their visit.The eyewitness accounts mention a number of photos and films alleged to have been made or seen of Noah's Ark. It is quite remarkable, as in case of the High School homework claim to have been eaten by a dog, something always happens to such evidence such that it convinently disappears before it can scrutinized by skeptics. I find unbelievable how people, i.e. William Todd, can be so careless with evidence, if actually real, that anyone would have understand to be important proof of one the most remarkable archaeological discoveries of the century. It is almost like if someone finding the Holy Grail and then leaving it in the back of their pickup truck.In case of William Todd, if there really was "a whole squadron of six mapping planes was abuzz about Noah's Ark and everyday some plane "accidentally" went by Ararat to see it." and "You practically needed a control tower around Ararat that summer.", someone in one of these planes, and quite likely many people at many times, would have also taken pictures. It defies common sense to presume that all of these pictures would have been either lost by their owners or confiscated as part of some governmental conspiracy to suppress the discovery of the Ark. Some of these pictures should have survived, still exist, and have surfaced by now given the controversy. A person has to wonder if decades after the fact, fallible human memory has completely rewritten and obscured what actually happened and what actually was seen.The way that some people have zealously claimed that an eroded syncline, a geologic structure, is Noah's Ark shows that even the most sincere eyewitness can be mistaken in what they identify as Noah's Ark. This is shown by "BOGUS "NOAH'S ARK FROM TURKEY EXPOSED AS A COMMON GEOLOGIC STRUCTURE," Lorence Gene Collins and David Franklin Fasold at:http://www.csun.edu/~vcgeo005/bogus.htmlAlso, more details are provided in "The Durupinar or canoe-shaped / boat-shaped mound site" at:Noah's Ark Search - Mount Ararat .In the case discussed above, the eyewitnesses mistook a natural feature even though they were able to inspect it firsthand. It is possible that this structure in the past, as now, was responsible for many ancient Ark sightings. The possibility for error is magnified a thousand times when a person is looking at what they think might be the Ark from a long distance, as from an airplane or in an aerial photograph, where a person can't actually visit the feature in person and ground truth his interpretations.Some of this so-called eyewitness testimony lacks any credibility, even for UFO books. In case of Lieutenant Colonel Walter Hunter's aerial photos, we have having him meeting two conveniently anonymous "guys" in possession of aerial photos of unknown origin of an unknown mountain. In his testimony, Lieutenant Colonel Hunter fails provide enough information for either any of his testimony to be verified or even know how, of what, and where that the photograph were taken. This is important because, if these photographs were of some mountain in Soviet Union, not Turkey, where spy photography would have taken, they would be useless as evidence of anything. Even more revealing is the note that the Lieutenant Hunter saw the aerial photos for only a few minutes. In that period of time, it would have been impossible for Lieutenant Colonel Hunter to have made a credible evaluation of what was on the photos.As in case of tales of UFOs and Egyptian artifacts found in the Grand Canyon, a person also finds clich tales, straight from shows like the X-Files, of governmental conspiracy to suppress evidence as in case of Donald Duckworth's testimony. The premise of this testimony, that the FBI agents, would be concerned about a person claiming to have seen Noah's Ark while working for the Smithsonian Institute is so ridiculous as to be an indication that Donald Duckworth is selling real estate in the twilight zone. The talk about governmental agencies suppressing evidence is the standard conspiratorial fiction used by many fringe groups to explain the lack of hard evidence to support their theories. This sounds like the fictional end of the "Raiders of the Lost Ark" where the Ark of the Covanent is stored in an anonymous government warehouse instead of real world.Presenting the story of person, who saw the "Ark in a 30 - 60 second newsreel in a movie theater in Jackson Tennessee" as real testimony is quite laughable. Given that thousands of other people also saw the same newsreel, hundreds, if not thousands of other people should have recognized the Ark also, if there was really something to it and there should many more witnesses. Given the lack of any collaborating evidence that this newsreel even existed outside of Charlie McCallen's imagination, his testimony is useless as evidence of anything. The same is true of the film seen by Ray Lubeck. If this film existed, many more people should have recognized the Ark and reported its occurrence in the film. It is quite possibly, that he misidentified something in the film for the Ark. Of course, because of the lack of specific information, this nothing more than an unverifiable story useless as evidence of anything.There is lots of eyewitness testimony. Unfortunately, it is the same sort of unverifiable and unsubstantiated hearsay that a person finds with UFO, Big Foot, Loch Ness Monster, and other popular legends, for which no hard evidence has ever been produced. In fact, compared to what have been published for UFOs and alien abductions, they have far more substantial and voluminous testimony supporting them than the stories about Noah's Ark on the above web page, even though UFOs and Bigfoot likely exist only in people's imagination.From what I have found, the state of evidence for Noah's Ark is corrected summarised in Noah'sArkSaerchCOM at:Noah's Ark Search - Mount Ararat .There it is stated:"Though there have been many claims of a discovery
of Noah's Ark by alleged eyewitnesses and in recent
books/films, there is no scientific proof, public
photograph, or evidence of the survival or existence
of Noah's Ark."and at Noah's Ark Search - Mount Ararat , it was stated:"Given the extensive research which has taken place
on Mount Ararat, it seems fair to say that if Noah's Ark
ever survived into modern times and is somewhere on
Ararat, there are few places remaining on the mountain
to search. There have been many expeditions, accounts,
alleged sightings, anomalies, and claims of discovery
involving Mount Ararat. What is lacking is any scientific
evidence or photo that shows that Noah's Ark exists
today. ..."At Noah's Ark Search - Mount Ararat , one of the FAQs stated:"I saw a movie or read a book that stated or implied that
Noah's Ark has already been discovered.Nothing in the research since the 1940's or the explorers'
hundred expeditions has proven "beyond a reasonable
doubt" that Noah's Ark or it's remains have been
discovered or that it has survived since the flood.
NoahsArkSearch.com attempts to look at the legitimate
claims and present them on this website but there is
no proof, photo, or science to support the ark's survival
thus far."It also has been argued that Noah's Ark actually landed on either Mount Cudi, a mountain in Iran, or elsewhere as noted in Noah's Ark Search - Mount Ararat. That people seriously consider other locations as possible locations where Noah's Ark might be found strongly indicates that the eyewitness evidence is neither as solid nor convincing as your post claim it to be.Yours,Bill[This message has been edited by Bill Birkeland, 03-01-2004]

kendemyer wrote;"The world is flooded with flood accounts and many
of them have striking similiarities to the Genesis account:
Flood Legends From Around the World"There are many flood legends in the world. This is not surprising because flooding caused by rivers, hurricanes, rain, and many other factors is a very common global factor in many people lives. However, the claim that "many of them have striking similiarities to the Genesis account" is nothing more than a Young Earth creationist falsehood fabricated by the selective presentation of only those legends that support this false claim. If a person looks the flood legends and myths, that supporters of this claim don't include in their web pages and puplications, a person finds that many of them differ in striking way from the Genesis account. Also, the person who wrote this web page forgets that myths and legends, like other cultural traits are traded between culturals and can,eventually diffuse over long distances, across and even between continents. Even the similarities, which exist between legends and myths, can be explained by other processes.For a more comprehensive listing of flood legends and myths **not** deliberately selected to support a specific personal interpretation of Genesis and the claim that "many of them have striking similiarities to the Genesis account," a person can look at:1. Flood Stories from Around the World by Mark Isaak
http://home.earthlink.net/~misaak/floods.htm2. Flood Stories From Around The World
http://www.talkorigins.org/pdf/flood-myths.pdfTo: BILL"Here is something I heard on the radio concerning UFO's which I do not put much stock in as far as far as being "flying saucers" or "little green men":"After looking into flying sauciers and "Little Green Men", I also came to the conclusion that they existed only in the imaginations of the people who claimed to have seen them. They are powerful evidence of how intelligent and honest people can deluded themselves into believing in and testifying about seeing things that they didn't see and visiting locations that they didn't visit. That innumerable people can be so mistaken in their testimony about flying sauciers and "Little Green Men", which don't exist, is a powerful argument for people to be skeptical about eyewitness testimony about matters, i.e. Noah's Ark, for which hard evidence simply doesn't exist.YoursBillP.S. Look at "Problems with a Global Flood" Second Edition by Mark Isaak
Problems with a Global Flood, 2nd edition

In message 2, John wrote:"I hate to side with the bad guys but it looks like the Chinese were
able to build some cargo ships which at least approached the size of
the ark. Historical records record a length of over 400 feet, and one
bit of reverse engineering suggests over 500."The figures cited for the length of the Chinese treasure ships are questionable because of uncertainties about how long the official unit of measurement, the zhang. was. This is discussed in "When China Ruled the Seas: The Treasure Fleet of the Dragon Throne 1405 - 1433" by Louise Levathes at: Page not found | Ripon CollegeIn this article, Louise Levathes stated:"The bao chuan (treasure boat) or long chuan (dragon boat) were "44 zhang
4 chi long and 18 Zhang wide." However, the official length of a chi, or
Chinese foot, varied considerably throughout the Ming Dynasty, from 9.5
inches to over 13 inches. Moreover, the chi varied depending on what it
was being used to construct and where it was being used; building
standards in the empire were not uniform.""Based on actual shipbuilding chi unearthed in Fujian province, which
varied in length from 10-53 to 11.037 inches, the largest of the treasure
ships is now thought to have been between about 390 and 408 feet long
and 160 to 166 feet wide, still one of the largest wooden sailboats ever
built anywhere in the world."Another web page to look at is the "Rise and Fall of 15th Century Chinese Seapower" by Michael L. Bosworth at: http://www.cronab.demon.co.uk/china.htmand "Tribute and Trade" at:
http://koreanhistoryproject.org/Ket/Idx/KETIndex0901.htmOne thing that makes me wonder about the accuracy of the lengths of the Chinese ships provided by Chinese historical records is they also report that Admiral Zheng He, who was in charge of the "treasure" ships, was over 8 ft tall. This reported height certainly sounds like a case where the captain's height has grown with the retelling and re-reporting of the actual event by second-hand, even third-hand, fourth-hand, and so forth, accounts. It would be interesting to know how far removed the people reporting the lengths of these ships are removed from either the primary documentation or witnesses to these ships. Unless a person wants to argue for the infallibility of Chinese historians, the further the sources reporting these lengths are from the actual primary documents and witnesses, the more suspect that the lengths they reported can be. Given that the ships, any blueprints, and primary documentation was deliberately destroyed when these voyages were abandoned, it is possible that later scholars were indulging in a large amount of guess work, including their length, when they later wrote about these voyages.It would be interesting for someone to find out how far removed from the demise of the 15th century Chinese treasure ships the historians, who wrote about them, were in time and location. Because, if they were relying on second-hand, third-hand, fourth-hand, and so forth sources, then there would a considerable amount of question about how trustworthy their estimates of the lengths of the Chinese "treasure ships" and even if they can be trusted at all.In message 6, Mespo stated:" I followed your Google suggestion and found 4 sites giving the length of
the largest Chinese ships as 400, 475, 600 and 444 feet respectively. *sigh*"Just because something is found on Google doesn't mean it is true. The truthfulness of these figures depends on the trustworthiness of the sources used by the Chinese who wrote about these Chinese ships. Someone needs to go back to the original reports and find out where they obtained the figures for the lengths of these ships. Given that they reported that Admiral Zheng He was over 8 ft tall certainly suggests that either nationalistic exaggeration or mistranslations of units occurred within the historical records at some point.Yours,BillSome web pages are:1. Did Noah really build an ark? By Jeremy Bowen, Presenter, Noah's Ark
BBC News, Friday, 19 March
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/magazine/3524676.stm2. BBC set to examine Noah and his ark -19/3/043. See John Wilkins in "Feedback for October 2000" at;
TalkOrigins Archive - Feedback for October 2000[This message has been edited by Bill Birkeland, 03-20-2004]

"Well, I'm getting closer.
Here's Great Republic.
She was 325 x 53 x 40 and was cross-braced with iron.
Still have to find something build completely out of wood, bracing and all."Actually, it appears that the Chinese treasure ships, technically speaking were more like the Great Republic, in that they used iron to strengthen their keel according to "When China Ruled the Seas: The Treasure Fleet of the Dragon Throne 1405 - 1433" by Louise Levathes at: Page not found | Ripon CollegeIn that article Levathes stated:"The keel consisted of long pieces of wood bound together with iron hoops."According to the above statement, an extremely important part of the Chinese treasure ships, their keels, were braced with iron. This something that Noah couldn't have done. These weren't completely iron-free wooden ships. Therefore, they can't be used as historic analogues for arguments about Noah' Ark.The "Louise Levathes" web page, from which the information above and, in part, message 154 comes from is an excerpt from a book published by Oxford University Press. The book is: Levathes, Louise, 1994, When China Ruled the
Seas: The Treasure Fleet of the Dragon
Throne,1405-1433. Oxford University Press. 256 pp.
ISBN 0195112075The information about iron being used in construction of the keel of the 15th century Chinese treasure ships and uncertainties concerning their length comes from a well-respected and research book published by well respected academic publisher.Yours,Bill[This message has been edited by Bill Birkeland, 03-20-2004]