Archaeologica.org

To quote someone else, "Ballard has admitted that his crew found nothing pecial at about -100 m in the Black Sea (near the Sakarya delta, as it happens), just some Bronze Age and Napoleonic-era wood and what might be the outline of the wreck of a ship.
Not "Noah's house", not "a village", and certainly not the "cities"
that others have inflated his sketchy outline of low-rounded mounds into. "

he used to have whats called a reputation for submarine research before that adventure didn't he

the black sea is an inland sea entirely surrounded by land as opposed to what you are claiming a port entirely surrounded by water

first, did i claim anything? no, you inferred. just so you know Oxford dictionary defines caost (coastline) as: the land beside or near to the sea or ocean. a coastline is usually used to talk about an area that is longer than a shoreline: the turkish coastline... pg. 284 Oxfod's advanced learner's dictionary

secondly, i mentioned it because the book mentioned it so if you want to accuse anyone of not knowing geography accuse Ian Wilson, he wrote the book and labeled it that way.

you have proven that you are just here to make trouble

To quote someone else

that is real realiable and credible. so he backtracked, he still found items worth investigating and until proven otherwise with credible sources it is a possibility.

he used to have whats called a reputation for submarine research before that adventure didn't he

given the nature of the scientific field it is not hard to understand why he fell into disrepute, he went against the grain and that is a big no no...

given the nature of the scientific field it is not hard to understand why he fell into disrepute

At least, "The Club" doesn't burn people at the stake for heresy.


BTW, I've been searching and can't find any link where Ballard repudiates his claim about the Black Sea.

Have you guys got one?

BTW, I've been searching and can't find any link where Ballard repudiates his claim about the Black Sea.

probably a doug weller 'tit for tat' try but still either way, he found evidence worth considering and possibly in support of the Biblical account.

Ryan and Pittman's Black Sea flood theory was a geological collapse of the land barrier between the Mediterranean and the Black Sea.

There was no pissed off deity.

No rain.

No fucking ark.

No Australian kangaroos loaded aboard.

No water covering the mountain tops.

No Mt. Ararat.

Ballard may or may not have found an indication of a habitation on the bottom of the Black Sea but to try to coopt Ryan and Pittman's theory into support for your fairy tales merely shows how desperate you guys are for any kind of support.

BTW, you are not alone, while looking to see where Ballard may have repudiated his earlier claims I saw lots of bible-thumping morons trumpeting his "find" as if it meant something.

first, did i claim anything

you were trying to use it as evidence of the great flood inundating civilisations which now lie under sea level
your ignorance of geography just made you a laughing stock
attempting to backtrack is making it funnier

as opposed to what you are claiming a port entirely surrounded by water

i amnot the laughingstock as you are the one that said that ports are surrounded by water not me. and i haven't backtracked yet. i quoted and used the term from the book so if you have a problem with the usage, go talk to wilson.

why don't you post something of value like ballard's repudiation instead of always going for the mickey mouse issues...just makes you look like you belong at the kiddie's table and not with me at the big boy's one.

why don't you post something of value like ballard's repudiation instead of always going for the mickey mouse issues...just makes you look like you belong at the kiddie's table and not with me at the big boy's one.

ooh and now youre resulting to personal attacks to prove you didn't just make an ass of yourself
do you think that will help
you started off by claiming ballard was your evidence
and now you want someone else to refute him
get an elevation map
read ballards theory
do the research yourself

i'm not helping you crawl out of the hole you just dug for yourself
i'm enjoying wtaching you look stupid

don't mis-represent what i said

stop posting crap
if you can

no i am not resorting to personal attacks, just letting you know what it feels like.

i used ballard and still do despite the post weller made and i have never heard of any retraction made by him and it through me a bit that it was even posted without source reference..

though anything coming from you is suspect.

ah yes because you are the master of quoting without sources you don't understand why anyone else would make such an error
he doesnt need a reference
its well known that Ballard got it wrong
and its well known that you introducing ballard as evidence for a global flood was wrong because Ballard didn't ever say that

archaeologist wrote:no i am not resorting to personal attacks, just letting you know what it feels like.

i used ballard and still do despite the post weller made and i have never heard of any retraction made by him and it through me a bit that it was even posted without source reference..

though anything coming from you is suspect.

Stooping a bit low, aren't you? I've been away 4 days, came back tired, and haven't had time to find a reference.

Ballard's reputation isn't tarnished by this so far as I know, but he no longer is backing up the original claims. I'll try to find a quote but you just have to wiat. Or you could try to find something recent from him where he supports his older claims. You can't.

Arch - you know I have never agreed with you. BUT - you do draw a crowd.

This and the other topics are for people who want to argue for the simple sake of arguing. Totally circular, and never an end.

I can tell you enjoy it though.

Keep bringing those lurkers in!