And, I don't find this image to be lifelike at all--it looks inferior and--assuming it's a painting for a moment, it's a pretty crappy painting in my opinion. If you think that's a life-like image of a face--that's your take on it. But that's all a side issue that, like the testing and does not even need to be stepped into.
As a side-bar--to help you refine your argument--the Medieval period is arguably 410-1453 A.D. or some say shorter, depending on who you ask but still a long time. To make your point about painting style being a 'non-starter' I'd think you'd want to make the claim about the painting style at the time this cloth was suspected to be forged. So pick a date--saying 'the medieval period' is not afixing a painting style. Let me help by going with 1390, "...when Bishop Pierre d'Arcis wrote a memorandum to Antipope Clement VII, stating that the shroud was a forgery and that the artist had confessed." (wikipedia [22][23])
I'd think You'd really want to show that painting was two-dimensional and crude in the late 1300's for it to be a 'non-starter' right? But, wasn't that the beginning of the Renaissance? But even before that wide influence, painters were doing decent 3D. See:
Procession of Saint Gregory, ca. 1300, Musee Conde, Chantilly. and
Duccio di Buoninsegna, Italian, c. 1255 - 1318, The Nativity with the Prophets Isaiah and Ezekiel, 1308/1311
Look especially at the Prophet Isaiah.
And, I don't find this image to be lifelike at all--it looks inferior and--assuming it's a painting for a moment, it's a pretty crappy painting in my opinion. If you think that's a life-like image of a face--that's your take on it. But that's all a side issue that, like the testing and does not even need to be stepped into.
As a side-bar--to help you refine your argument--the Medieval period is arguably 410-1453 A.D. or some say shorter, depending on who you ask but still a long time. To make your point about painting style being a 'non-starter' I'd think you'd want to make the claim about the painting style at the time this cloth was suspected to be forged. So pick a date--saying 'the medieval period' is not afixing a painting style. Let me help by going with 1390, "...when Bishop Pierre d'Arcis wrote a memorandum to Antipope Clement VII, stating that the shroud was a forgery and that the artist had confessed." (wikipedia [22][23])
I'd think You'd really want to show that painting was two-dimensional and crude in the late 1300's for it to be a 'non-starter' right? But, wasn't that the beginning of the Renaissance? But even before that wide influence, painters were doing decent 3D. See:
Procession of Saint Gregory, ca. 1300, Musee Conde, Chantilly. and
Duccio di Buoninsegna, Italian, c. 1255 - 1318, The Nativity with the Prophets Isaiah and Ezekiel, 1308/1311
Look especially at the Prophet Isaiah.
"...fake is based on [that] The image was painted..."
No, that is incorrect. I do not base my claim on it being painted.
My opinion is that it was originally painted. How it was done is not even that interesting to me. I've viewed uncountable medieval paintings both live and printed. They had advanced beyond 2D Egyptian wall paintings! So, I don't see that as a non-starter.
With all due respect, I’m not certain you actually own the book I’ve been referring to. The process of auto-oxidation without the need to drape the cloth over the subject explains the image quite clearly therein. And this process has also been backed up by work and experiments based on the shroud by Dr Allan Mills. This is enough ‘proof’ for me to at least entertain the theory proposed in the Knight/Lomas works, and certainly over believing what ever scepticism you have on the matter. Sorry to say.
Allen, I’m assuming that your view that the cloth is fake is based on one or both of the following:
The image was painted
The image is impossible to create by Volkringer pattern or other process due to the absence of distortion, even without testing the creation of one yourself
The first is a non-starter theory for me because no medieval artists painted in such a lifelike style, they would not have painted a negative image (which the shroud contains) and all medieval painting show Christ being crucified with nails through the palms and not through the wrists as in the shroud. Other evidence has shown that the shroud cannot possibly be a painting because while the shroud shows a continuous uninterrupted visible image it does not show a continuous undamaged visible medium film.
For the second, the effects of the shroud have in fact been reproduced, with the findings provided in the Second Messiah, a book you state you have on your book shelf and which covers the matter of distortion quite extensively, and which for some reason you have failed to include in your arguments. The shroud itself does indeed have distortions which are well noted in the book. The image on the shroud was not caused by contact with the cloth (which would cause the distortions you explain) but rather a close vertical convection process known as auto-oxidation, on the flat cloth. You could research Dr Allan Mills’ work on the subject.
There is no such thing as a “pure language” except for, perhaps, the Andamanese or a few tribes in South America that shun (rightly) all commerce with outsiders. Languages exchange words through trade or war. The tall, fair, semitic, agricultural, temple building, idol worshiping, polytheistic Druids (Druhyus) from the place of the three rivers (present day Euphrates, Tigris and Jordan) and ancient Ur were harried by the multi-racial horse borne pastoral and nomadic Aryans who raided them for agricultural produce as well as women. They were also harried by their own apostates who had adopted Yahweh who said unto Abraham, “Put no other Gods before me for I am a jealous God”. So they scattered in all directions. Some of them came East settled in the Indo-Gangetic Plain, over laying the pre existing negroid tribals (called “Dravids by the British) and brought architecture and agriculture to India. This occurred well before the Aryans followed them and the Treaty of Bharatha entered into between the Aryan Chiefs of the Indo-Gangetic Plain and with Arya Mihira, the paramount Chief of the Aryan Tribes, beyond the Hindu Khush began the joyous tones of the Krishna Yajur Veda (chronologically the third of the five Vedas)
"Deep South": Malayalam is more than 50% Sanskrit. When I was a child there (1950s) , using a Sanskrit noun was considered the mark of a high class, cultured Malayalam. My Dad who was brought up in the Madras Presidency (Telugu/Tamil) and my Mother who was brought up in Royal Mysore (Kannada) got on quite easily with Malayalam because of this (as both of them had a Sanskrit up bringing a home). Kannada and Tamil were replete with Sanskrit words. The Justice and "Dravid" parties set about systematically expurgating Sanskrit from Tamil. The efforts to generate anti-Brahmin and anti-Sanskrit hatred in Mysore (Karnataka) were not as successful as in Madarass and so still bear vestiges of Vijjayanagar-Shringeri Sanskrit. The Druid languages that came with the Semites from Mesopotamia (check "Ur", the protypal word for "city". The Aryans had no agriculture and therefore no architecture or cities until they derived both from the Druids intermingled with local tribal-negroid dialects of equal or greater antiquity to yield many "Tamizh" (i.e. language). Shen (pure) Tamizh, Kanvada (sweetly spoken) Thamizh, Tuluga (Scolding) Thamizh, and Mazhala (lisping) Thamizh. During and after the Krishna Yajur Veda Period (i.e. during the Aryan settlements of the Indo-Gangetic plains) when the Aryans extracted agricultural and architectural tribute from the subjugated Druhyus or Dasyus, many Sanskrit words began to enter into the various Thamizhs (languages in semitic-druidic). In the Atharva Veda Period (prior to 6000 BCE) after the Great Civil War referred to in Vyasa’s Mahabharatha decimated the Aryans and made their hegemony impossible, the Dasyus entered the Gurukula System as the fourth Varna of Shudra with full varna mobility thereafter until Ashoka put an end to the Vedic period and culture. At that time, the Druidical technologies of agriculture, architecture etc and the temple worship and idolatrous methods and rituals entered the Aryan Vedas (Primarily the Atharva Veda and the Thraithreya Upanishad) through the Agama Shastras, and reverse osmosis began with a host of Thamizh words entering the Sanskrit vocabulary and are wrongly mistaken to be words of Aryan origin. All Sanskrit words that relate to agriculture, sculpture, architecture, temple worship etc are of Thamizh origin while all Thamizh words that relate to law, military science, navigation, astronomy, astrology etc are of Sanskrit origin. (e.g. The Tamil “Shattam” so beloved of Tiru Da Karunanidhi comes from “Shastram”)
There is one unanswered question, though: How does the researcher conclude that that the Genes travelled from South Asia to Mesopotamia and not the other way around? (The Shroutha Smartha History indicates that the tall, fair, agricultural, polytheistic,idolatrous, architectural Druhyus or Druids who preceded the Aryans on the Indo-Gangetic plain came from Mesopotamia)
Yahshua or Jesus if you prefer, existed, whether you believe He was Christ or not, He existed and was described by Flavius Josephus, outside the Bible. Simply saying none of the Biblical folks existed doesn't prove anything. Atheists and naysayers are free to believe and speak whatever they feel is appropriate - Free Country.
"The Holy mountain' is Mount Elbrus that Prometheus climbed to steal fire for humanity. God punished Prometheus by having him chained to Mount Elbrus to have his liver pecked out by crows every day, and resurrected every morning to suffer the same for all eternity. Mount Elbrus the mountain of El, is a volcano and the largest mountain in the Caucus mountains that ends with Mount Ararat.
Though looks very interesting fact, But still not perfect - Most of publication are from outsiders and hardly few knows about paternal DNA - Y haplography and Maternal Mitochondrial Mt DNA haplography. No one tested our DNA (mine and yours - we are the most ancient !) so most are just assumptions without complete DNA mapping.
Recommend reading my entire book (with an open mind) and you may find some surprises. It’s really a common sense approach to our ancestors many stories, myths and legends of a flood and some survivors. It looks at the Bible, Sumerian myths and real history and archaeology. Some researchers state dozens of ancient flood legends, others claims 100’s of flood legends. The “names” of the main flood survivor changes many times depending on the culture telling the ancient flood story. I know most of the arguments against anything beyond a regional flood… melting glaciers of an ice age…. yada, yada, yada. But no one on this planet was on this earth pre-flood and has any real idea of what the earth was like.
I find the “intelligentsia” to be some of the most rude, smug and closed-minded people on the planet and are mainly good at calling others stupid. It’s hard to learn or grow when you already know everything. It’s a search for our ancient origins and the truth. Let’s stay open minded and respectful of others in their search. Ok to disagree minus the vitriol.
As amanita muscaria is only used very little as a drug even today, I cannot believe that scholars haven't thought about Psilocybe semilanceata, which to my sparse knowledge has a more powerful euphoria and is rather safe to use (meaning, you don't have to be a very skilled botanist to be able to intake it).
I was with “Big Deal” and on the “Noah’s Ark” site in 1998 (went to the site earlier in 1989 and 1990). This site is/was supported by David Deal, David Fasold and Ron Wyatt (and others). I have David Deals book you mention as well. I appreciate everyone who claims or wants to believe the Durupinar formation is Noah’s Ark… heck, there is even a Turkish tourist center at the site with a sign stating its Noah’s Ark. I encouraged excavation to help make a final determination, but the last time I visited the site in 1998, only a dynamite explosion hole was all that was visable. David Deal was also a heck of an illustrator. May he rest in peace.
I totally agree: Adam and Eve, Noah, Abraham, Mozes... All fiction.
What science says that really happened is that the Jews originally were just Canaanites of the social underclass probably very much in debt. They rebelled and fled into the mountains. There they started their own new identity or even ethnicity. And to give themselves a history they adopted myths from different cultures and adapted them to their own needs.
The latest is that ever more people understand that even 'Jesus' is fiction too!!! See for example the Richard Carrier video: Richard Carrier – 'Did Jesus Even Exist?'
Money and time wasted. Noah's Ark never existed. It's a story in the Old Testament that has no basis in fact or history. It's just a story, like most of the New and Old Testament.
Here are the facts: history does NOT record many of the Biblical patriarchs (there is no evidence in the historical or archaeological record that they ever existed). The same is true of Jesus himself, there is no contemporary evidence that records his existence (at all). And on and on, like Moses. His is allegedly the author of many books of the Old Testament, yet Moses never existed either.
Most 'believers' won't believe any of this, but they've done no research on the topic and refuse to read the works of the best researchers and archaeologists. They should - because they have embraced fables as fact - and that is why all things "searched" for such as the Ark are never found (but there is a great deal of fraud and fabrication to bolster these stories).
An idiot name Wyatt tried this many times, alleging he found the Ark, the burial cave of Jesus, chariot wheels in the Dead Sea and on and on. He joins the ranks of MANY frauds and charlatans that are fleecing people of their money.
Read history. Read the known facts. Read the research. Or go on pretending that there is a magical fairy that governs all life...
This is another of Deal's good books on Noah's flood. From Artisan Publishers.
"Noah's Ark, The Evidence" This book rather than the one I listed above, gives the most details on the whole area surrounding the landing place of the Ark. The Bible states the Ark came to rest in the "mountains of Urartu" not Mount Ararat, as most everyone thinks.
The late David Alan Deal has a book that covers this subject very well. Naxuan is the place where the ark landed after the waters receded. His illustrations show his concept of how the ark may have been constructed. Ark remains in the form of a 538 foot long boat impression in a mud-flow adjacent to the Kurdish village of Uzengili. Noah and his sons lived there in that place for a long time and there are ruins still traceable as well as thousands of graves. "The Day Behemoth and Leviathan Died" is the book.
Noah's ark was the mushroom Amanita muscaria. The flood was not water but people, and other culture. All life on the planet evolved from the mushroom. Please stop taking a religious book so literal. In fact nearly all stories in the Bible are about the mushroom. Adam and Eve ate it. Jesus too was an Amitina. Why you people want to believe this crap is literal I will never understand.
For another art mystery check out the work of the Meropis Collegium on their page meropisweb.com. They have discovered the mystery of the 500 year old painting by Agnolo Bronzino titled The Allegory of Venus, Cupid, Folly, and Time.
Here you can navigate quickly through all comments made in any article sorted by date/time.
And, I don't find this image to be lifelike at all--it looks inferior and--assuming it's a painting for a moment, it's a pretty crappy painting in my opinion. If you think that's a life-like image of a face--that's your take on it. But that's all a side issue that, like the testing and does not even need to be stepped into.
As a side-bar--to help you refine your argument--the Medieval period is arguably 410-1453 A.D. or some say shorter, depending on who you ask but still a long time. To make your point about painting style being a 'non-starter' I'd think you'd want to make the claim about the painting style at the time this cloth was suspected to be forged. So pick a date--saying 'the medieval period' is not afixing a painting style. Let me help by going with 1390, "...when Bishop Pierre d'Arcis wrote a memorandum to Antipope Clement VII, stating that the shroud was a forgery and that the artist had confessed." (wikipedia [22][23])
I'd think You'd really want to show that painting was two-dimensional and crude in the late 1300's for it to be a 'non-starter' right? But, wasn't that the beginning of the Renaissance? But even before that wide influence, painters were doing decent 3D. See:
Procession of Saint Gregory, ca. 1300, Musee Conde, Chantilly. and
Duccio di Buoninsegna, Italian, c. 1255 - 1318, The Nativity with the Prophets Isaiah and Ezekiel, 1308/1311
Look especially at the Prophet Isaiah.
And, I don't find this image to be lifelike at all--it looks inferior and--assuming it's a painting for a moment, it's a pretty crappy painting in my opinion. If you think that's a life-like image of a face--that's your take on it. But that's all a side issue that, like the testing and does not even need to be stepped into.
As a side-bar--to help you refine your argument--the Medieval period is arguably 410-1453 A.D. or some say shorter, depending on who you ask but still a long time. To make your point about painting style being a 'non-starter' I'd think you'd want to make the claim about the painting style at the time this cloth was suspected to be forged. So pick a date--saying 'the medieval period' is not afixing a painting style. Let me help by going with 1390, "...when Bishop Pierre d'Arcis wrote a memorandum to Antipope Clement VII, stating that the shroud was a forgery and that the artist had confessed." (wikipedia [22][23])
I'd think You'd really want to show that painting was two-dimensional and crude in the late 1300's for it to be a 'non-starter' right? But, wasn't that the beginning of the Renaissance? But even before that wide influence, painters were doing decent 3D. See:
Procession of Saint Gregory, ca. 1300, Musee Conde, Chantilly. and
Duccio di Buoninsegna, Italian, c. 1255 - 1318, The Nativity with the Prophets Isaiah and Ezekiel, 1308/1311
Look especially at the Prophet Isaiah.
"...fake is based on [that] The image was painted..."
No, that is incorrect. I do not base my claim on it being painted.
My opinion is that it was originally painted. How it was done is not even that interesting to me. I've viewed uncountable medieval paintings both live and printed. They had advanced beyond 2D Egyptian wall paintings! So, I don't see that as a non-starter.
With all due respect, I’m not certain you actually own the book I’ve been referring to. The process of auto-oxidation without the need to drape the cloth over the subject explains the image quite clearly therein. And this process has also been backed up by work and experiments based on the shroud by Dr Allan Mills. This is enough ‘proof’ for me to at least entertain the theory proposed in the Knight/Lomas works, and certainly over believing what ever scepticism you have on the matter. Sorry to say.
Allen, I’m assuming that your view that the cloth is fake is based on one or both of the following:
The first is a non-starter theory for me because no medieval artists painted in such a lifelike style, they would not have painted a negative image (which the shroud contains) and all medieval painting show Christ being crucified with nails through the palms and not through the wrists as in the shroud. Other evidence has shown that the shroud cannot possibly be a painting because while the shroud shows a continuous uninterrupted visible image it does not show a continuous undamaged visible medium film.
For the second, the effects of the shroud have in fact been reproduced, with the findings provided in the Second Messiah, a book you state you have on your book shelf and which covers the matter of distortion quite extensively, and which for some reason you have failed to include in your arguments. The shroud itself does indeed have distortions which are well noted in the book. The image on the shroud was not caused by contact with the cloth (which would cause the distortions you explain) but rather a close vertical convection process known as auto-oxidation, on the flat cloth. You could research Dr Allan Mills’ work on the subject.
There is no such thing as a “pure language” except for, perhaps, the Andamanese or a few tribes in South America that shun (rightly) all commerce with outsiders. Languages exchange words through trade or war. The tall, fair, semitic, agricultural, temple building, idol worshiping, polytheistic Druids (Druhyus) from the place of the three rivers (present day Euphrates, Tigris and Jordan) and ancient Ur were harried by the multi-racial horse borne pastoral and nomadic Aryans who raided them for agricultural produce as well as women. They were also harried by their own apostates who had adopted Yahweh who said unto Abraham, “Put no other Gods before me for I am a jealous God”. So they scattered in all directions. Some of them came East settled in the Indo-Gangetic Plain, over laying the pre existing negroid tribals (called “Dravids by the British) and brought architecture and agriculture to India. This occurred well before the Aryans followed them and the Treaty of Bharatha entered into between the Aryan Chiefs of the Indo-Gangetic Plain and with Arya Mihira, the paramount Chief of the Aryan Tribes, beyond the Hindu Khush began the joyous tones of the Krishna Yajur Veda (chronologically the third of the five Vedas)
"Deep South": Malayalam is more than 50% Sanskrit. When I was a child there (1950s) , using a Sanskrit noun was considered the mark of a high class, cultured Malayalam. My Dad who was brought up in the Madras Presidency (Telugu/Tamil) and my Mother who was brought up in Royal Mysore (Kannada) got on quite easily with Malayalam because of this (as both of them had a Sanskrit up bringing a home). Kannada and Tamil were replete with Sanskrit words. The Justice and "Dravid" parties set about systematically expurgating Sanskrit from Tamil. The efforts to generate anti-Brahmin and anti-Sanskrit hatred in Mysore (Karnataka) were not as successful as in Madarass and so still bear vestiges of Vijjayanagar-Shringeri Sanskrit. The Druid languages that came with the Semites from Mesopotamia (check "Ur", the protypal word for "city". The Aryans had no agriculture and therefore no architecture or cities until they derived both from the Druids intermingled with local tribal-negroid dialects of equal or greater antiquity to yield many "Tamizh" (i.e. language). Shen (pure) Tamizh, Kanvada (sweetly spoken) Thamizh, Tuluga (Scolding) Thamizh, and Mazhala (lisping) Thamizh. During and after the Krishna Yajur Veda Period (i.e. during the Aryan settlements of the Indo-Gangetic plains) when the Aryans extracted agricultural and architectural tribute from the subjugated Druhyus or Dasyus, many Sanskrit words began to enter into the various Thamizhs (languages in semitic-druidic). In the Atharva Veda Period (prior to 6000 BCE) after the Great Civil War referred to in Vyasa’s Mahabharatha decimated the Aryans and made their hegemony impossible, the Dasyus entered the Gurukula System as the fourth Varna of Shudra with full varna mobility thereafter until Ashoka put an end to the Vedic period and culture. At that time, the Druidical technologies of agriculture, architecture etc and the temple worship and idolatrous methods and rituals entered the Aryan Vedas (Primarily the Atharva Veda and the Thraithreya Upanishad) through the Agama Shastras, and reverse osmosis began with a host of Thamizh words entering the Sanskrit vocabulary and are wrongly mistaken to be words of Aryan origin. All Sanskrit words that relate to agriculture, sculpture, architecture, temple worship etc are of Thamizh origin while all Thamizh words that relate to law, military science, navigation, astronomy, astrology etc are of Sanskrit origin. (e.g. The Tamil “Shattam” so beloved of Tiru Da Karunanidhi comes from “Shastram”)
There is one unanswered question, though: How does the researcher conclude that that the Genes travelled from South Asia to Mesopotamia and not the other way around? (The Shroutha Smartha History indicates that the tall, fair, agricultural, polytheistic,idolatrous, architectural Druhyus or Druids who preceded the Aryans on the Indo-Gangetic plain came from Mesopotamia)
Yahshua or Jesus if you prefer, existed, whether you believe He was Christ or not, He existed and was described by Flavius Josephus, outside the Bible. Simply saying none of the Biblical folks existed doesn't prove anything. Atheists and naysayers are free to believe and speak whatever they feel is appropriate - Free Country.
"The Holy mountain' is Mount Elbrus that Prometheus climbed to steal fire for humanity. God punished Prometheus by having him chained to Mount Elbrus to have his liver pecked out by crows every day, and resurrected every morning to suffer the same for all eternity. Mount Elbrus the mountain of El, is a volcano and the largest mountain in the Caucus mountains that ends with Mount Ararat.
Though looks very interesting fact, But still not perfect - Most of publication are from outsiders and hardly few knows about paternal DNA - Y haplography and Maternal Mitochondrial Mt DNA haplography. No one tested our DNA (mine and yours - we are the most ancient !) so most are just assumptions without complete DNA mapping.
Recommend reading my entire book (with an open mind) and you may find some surprises. It’s really a common sense approach to our ancestors many stories, myths and legends of a flood and some survivors. It looks at the Bible, Sumerian myths and real history and archaeology. Some researchers state dozens of ancient flood legends, others claims 100’s of flood legends. The “names” of the main flood survivor changes many times depending on the culture telling the ancient flood story. I know most of the arguments against anything beyond a regional flood… melting glaciers of an ice age…. yada, yada, yada. But no one on this planet was on this earth pre-flood and has any real idea of what the earth was like.
I find the “intelligentsia” to be some of the most rude, smug and closed-minded people on the planet and are mainly good at calling others stupid. It’s hard to learn or grow when you already know everything. It’s a search for our ancient origins and the truth. Let’s stay open minded and respectful of others in their search. Ok to disagree minus the vitriol.
Any connection between Tiahuancao and Gobekli Tepe in Turkey?
As amanita muscaria is only used very little as a drug even today, I cannot believe that scholars haven't thought about Psilocybe semilanceata, which to my sparse knowledge has a more powerful euphoria and is rather safe to use (meaning, you don't have to be a very skilled botanist to be able to intake it).
I was with “Big Deal” and on the “Noah’s Ark” site in 1998 (went to the site earlier in 1989 and 1990). This site is/was supported by David Deal, David Fasold and Ron Wyatt (and others). I have David Deals book you mention as well. I appreciate everyone who claims or wants to believe the Durupinar formation is Noah’s Ark… heck, there is even a Turkish tourist center at the site with a sign stating its Noah’s Ark. I encouraged excavation to help make a final determination, but the last time I visited the site in 1998, only a dynamite explosion hole was all that was visable. David Deal was also a heck of an illustrator. May he rest in peace.
I totally agree: Adam and Eve, Noah, Abraham, Mozes... All fiction.
What science says that really happened is that the Jews originally were just Canaanites of the social underclass probably very much in debt. They rebelled and fled into the mountains. There they started their own new identity or even ethnicity. And to give themselves a history they adopted myths from different cultures and adapted them to their own needs.
The latest is that ever more people understand that even 'Jesus' is fiction too!!! See for example the Richard Carrier video: Richard Carrier – 'Did Jesus Even Exist?'
Money and time wasted. Noah's Ark never existed. It's a story in the Old Testament that has no basis in fact or history. It's just a story, like most of the New and Old Testament.
Here are the facts: history does NOT record many of the Biblical patriarchs (there is no evidence in the historical or archaeological record that they ever existed). The same is true of Jesus himself, there is no contemporary evidence that records his existence (at all). And on and on, like Moses. His is allegedly the author of many books of the Old Testament, yet Moses never existed either.
Most 'believers' won't believe any of this, but they've done no research on the topic and refuse to read the works of the best researchers and archaeologists. They should - because they have embraced fables as fact - and that is why all things "searched" for such as the Ark are never found (but there is a great deal of fraud and fabrication to bolster these stories).
An idiot name Wyatt tried this many times, alleging he found the Ark, the burial cave of Jesus, chariot wheels in the Dead Sea and on and on. He joins the ranks of MANY frauds and charlatans that are fleecing people of their money.
Read history. Read the known facts. Read the research. Or go on pretending that there is a magical fairy that governs all life...
This is another of Deal's good books on Noah's flood. From Artisan Publishers.
"Noah's Ark, The Evidence" This book rather than the one I listed above, gives the most details on the whole area surrounding the landing place of the Ark. The Bible states the Ark came to rest in the "mountains of Urartu" not Mount Ararat, as most everyone thinks.
http://www.artisanpublishers.com/noahs-evidencethe-bible-flood-gilgamesh...
The late David Alan Deal has a book that covers this subject very well. Naxuan is the place where the ark landed after the waters receded. His illustrations show his concept of how the ark may have been constructed. Ark remains in the form of a 538 foot long boat impression in a mud-flow adjacent to the Kurdish village of Uzengili. Noah and his sons lived there in that place for a long time and there are ruins still traceable as well as thousands of graves. "The Day Behemoth and Leviathan Died" is the book.
Noah's ark was the mushroom Amanita muscaria. The flood was not water but people, and other culture. All life on the planet evolved from the mushroom. Please stop taking a religious book so literal. In fact nearly all stories in the Bible are about the mushroom. Adam and Eve ate it. Jesus too was an Amitina. Why you people want to believe this crap is literal I will never understand.
For another art mystery check out the work of the Meropis Collegium on their page meropisweb.com. They have discovered the mystery of the 500 year old painting by Agnolo Bronzino titled The Allegory of Venus, Cupid, Folly, and Time.
Pages