Talk:Ararat anomaly

I don't get what the problem really is

Why hasn't anyone climbed up there and checked that thing out? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.158.246.65 (talk) 14:42, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

According to Wiki link (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Ararat) "Ararat is inaccessible, both by reason of its great height, and of the snow which perpetually covers it". But I wonder the same thing. I wish an expedition with technological advancement would investigate today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.23.42.223 (talk) 21:07, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

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 Da Vinci Code and The Holy Blood and the 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)

Gee, I just noticed this very old discussion to merge the Ararat "anomaly" and the Durupinar discussions, and since I see that this has not happened, I assume it is a dead issue... but folks, the Ararat "anomaly" and the Durupinar site aren't even in the same ball park. The so called "anomaly" is a fuzzy "CIA photograph" and a shadow observed from the town of Doğubeyazit in the valley below. No investigation has been done there and I don't know of anyone who has even visited it recently (ever?). The Durupinar site on the other hand is undeniably physical, accessible, and has been the subject of on-site study by a number of groups. The "anomaly" like the Ahora Gorge, is a great place about which to speculate concerning the Ark because no one can reach these places to conform or deny the rumors. Durupinar, on the other hand, stands or falls based on the science that has, is, or will be done there. The "anomaly" will live on in the halls of rumor and speculation while Durupinar will eventually be irradiated, probed, excavated, and sampled until it is conclusively accepted or dismissed (and yes, there are those who have already made up their biased minds based on cursory quick looks or on the strength of papers by academic pundits who have never even set foot on the site (e.g., Collins)). I would therefore oppose any merging of articles about rumored sites (most of which fall on Mt. Ararat) with a measurable object like the Durupinar site or the "striated rock" that Cornuke found in Iran. -- Firewall 20:02, 2 August 2007 (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)

I guess your last sentence is correct - this is an article about the Anomaly, and the only erason Durupinar is mentioned is to clear up any confusion between the two. Ok, leave it as you edited it. PiCo 02:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

What is it meant to be?

Sorry to miss the point, but in the article nothing really says what we are looking at in the picture – can x mark the spot? Julia Rossi 10:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

It's nothing more than a twinkle in the minds of a handful of Biblical literalists. Viewfinder 11:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The external link has a much better aerial shot (in that special, creationist sense of the word "better"), and there's a ground level shot in the "Notes" section. None present anything other than evidence for pareidolia (the picture that heads up the article is priceless in this regard). --Plumbago 12:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

thanks people – it reminds me of a cartoon to the effect that kids are looking at clouds and one says, I see hannibal with his elephants crossing the alps, and another one says, I was gonna say I saw a puppy, a teddy and a snowman, but I changed my mind. I can't even see the twinkle! Julia Rossi 10:29, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

hi darlings, wheres the pix! you guys are missing out. I will have to put some up, lol! Some nice high-res TIFFs perhaps.

Nice helpful pix. Now I get it. Julia Rossi 06:41, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

err... sorry people, what exactly are we supposed to be looking at here? ha ha ha! If you squint your eyes you can kinda see a grumpy face. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.7.177 (talk) 00:43, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Biblical Literalists Revisted

I am not a biblical literalist, but I'd be keen to go investigate Ararat, and would be willing to consider the anomaly an ark if the evidence were good. Similarly, I'm not a classical literalist, but I see no reason for rejecting Schliemann's assertions regarding Troy. I'm not an Egyptological literalist, but I don't have any reason to conclude the Merneptah Stele is not what it is supposed to be.

I concur with Caleby, I would like to see references to "biblical literalists" removed unless sources could be provided.A.J.Chesswas 00:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

To my mind you both have an eccentric idea of literalism. It means simply taking something literally - Schliemann was a literalist vis-a-vis the Iliad (i.e., he took it to be history as well as poetry), and anyone who takes the Noa's Ark story in the bible literally (as history rather than, say, allegory) is also being a literalist. It's just a matter of definition. Nor do you have to take the entire bible literally to be a literalist about the Ark chapters. PiCo 01:20, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

So a person could be a biblical literalist if he believed the ancient temple at Jerusalem to be true, but didn't believe Noah's Ark was a true story? Wouldn't this mean that you could be just as likely to believe Noah's Ark wasn't for real even as a literalist?

Ie:

1. Believe something [x] in the bible is literally true = biblical literalist

2. Believe the Jews built a temple [x] after being returned from exile, which was subsequently destroyed = biblical literalist.

3. Believe in temple [x], but not ark = biblical literalist

• THEREFORE

Being biblical literalist is not a qualifier for belief in Noah's Ark

• BECAUSE

"you don't have to take the entire bible literally to be a literalist about [x]" - PiCo 01:20, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Surely to be a biblical literalist is to be committed to the literalism of the whole Bible, including the 6-day creation and young earth, otherwise one would simply be a Noah's Ark Literalist, or a Second Temple at Jerusalem Literalist, or a Young Earth Creationist.

Lets remove the labels so people can see the anomaly without somebody's personal biases, UNLESS you can provide references.

There must be a wikipedia policy somewhere to back me up on this, if an appeal to common sense does not suffice. A.J.Chesswas 02:33, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

"But believers in Biblical literalism cannot be selective. They should read Numbers 31 and pay particular attention to verse 18...They should also read Revelation 22 verse 18 about adding to Biblical prophesies..." Viewfinder 08:47, 7 April 2006 (UTC) This is perhaps the greatest critique of literalists - that they are inconsistent. There is an underyling notion, then, that the term Biblical Literalism implies belief in literalism across the board. I restate my case; one need not be a biblical literalist on the whole to believe Noah's Ark was an historical event. A.J.Chesswas 03:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

GOING ONCE... A.J.Chesswas 20:35, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for slowness, I was seeing Angkor Wat (it was more fun than Wikipedia). Anyway, biblical literalism and Noah: well, the bible is the only place you'll find Noah's ark mentioned, so if you believe that it might be on Mt Ararat (or anywhere else), it's because you read it in the bible. And if you read it in the bible and believed it might be true, then you took the Noah's ark story literally. Therefore... PiCo 23:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

So if I read about Israel being captive in Egypt for generations and believed it might be true, does that make me a Biblical Literalist? If I read about the Peloponnesian War in classical literature and believed it might be true, does that make me a Classical Literalist? Even if in spite of this belief I think the battle of Troy never happened? A.J.Chesswas 02:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

"So if I read about Israel being captive in Egypt for generations and believed it might be true, does that make me a Biblical Literalist?" Yes.

"If I read about the Peloponnesian War in classical literature and believed it might be true, does that make me a Classical Literalist?" Strictly speaking, yes. I guess the main difference is that you'll have public opinion on your side on this one - everyone agrees that the Peloponnesian War happened, even if they couldn't quite tell you where or when. Classical historians, however, would look at you pityingly if you said you took everything in Thucydides at face value.

"Even if in spite of this belief I think the battle of Troy never happened?" I don't see the connection between the P. War and the T. War - it's perfectly possible to believe the first happened and the second didn't. It's all a matter of how you regard your sources - presumably in this case you have trust in Thucydides to write good history, but look on Homer as more interested in the poetry angle. PiCo 05:18, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

It's wierd, because by your interpretation a literalist would be more broad-minded than one who wasn't. Because he considered a text may have historical merit he is more likely to make a dig at Ararat, or at Troy, whereas a non-literalist would not even consider it.

I still think the use of the term "biblical literalism" here gives the impression that the only people interested in the history of the Ararat account are closed-minded and committed to a dogma that prioritises sacred text over archaeology. Yet the very fact that those interested in Ararat are interested in archaeology would suggest otherwise. A.J.Chesswas 21:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

You're right about my definition of biblical (or Homeric) literalism - it's a belief in the literal, take-it-at-face-value truth of the text. But archaeologists don't go looking for Noah's Ark because the evidence is all against it being there. This isn't an absence of positive evidence, it's the presence of real evidence. Geology has ruled out a global flood (not enough water to cover the earth for one thing), geobiology also (that's the science of how creatures got to where they are today - if you believe that all the animals started off with 2 pairs each on the slopes of Ararat, then you can't explain how kangaroos got to Australia), even shipbuilding technology (big wooden boats don't float too well - the timbers warp in the swell and they spring leaks all over). Plus, of course, biblical scholars have concluded that Genesis was written no earlier than the 6th century BC, that Noah's Ark is based on Babylonian myths, and that the person who wrote it had theological objectives, not scientific or historical ones. So for all these reasons archaeologists don't go looking for Noah's Ark. They might be wrong, of course - maybe you might go there one day and find the Ark and make them all look silly. But if you're genuinely interested in archaeology, you'd know beforehand why it is that aracheologists would tell you your chances of finding the Ark are zero. PiCo 01:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

An interest in archeology on Mt Ararat is not an indication of whether one is closed or open minded. It is the possible presence of a large wooden boat that drives the biblical literalists to an interest in archeology in the Middle East. It is rather telling that there are not hourdes of people scouring Mt Ararat for a boat. Finding such a boat up there would be a huge boost for those who wish to prove the Bible stories. We will ignore the work of Ron Wyatt since it is not taken seriously. -- Alan Liefting talk 02:17, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Easy way to solve this:

"The Ararat anomaly is...advanced by some believers in Biblical literalism as the remains of Noah's Ark."

1. Who advances the Ararat anomaly?

2. Have these people all, or generally, described themselves explicitly as "biblical literalists", or are they any MORE "biblical literalists" than Christians in general?

3. Can you provide evidences/sources to show this to be true?

If you can link all of these people clearly with the "biblical literalist" label then it has utility in the article. If you can't, then its use is evidence of the biases and presuppositions of the article's authors.

Thank you for your time. A.J.Chesswas 03:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

(Reducing indent). We've been through this. Question: Who advances the Ararat anomaly? Answer: Believers in biblical literalism - nobody else believes in Noah's Ark. Question: Have these people described themselves as literalists? Answer: They don't need to, they're literalists by definition, since they believe in a literal interpretation of the Ark story. Are they any more literalist than Christians in general? Yes, they are - I've never seen any evidence that a majority of Christians believe in Noah's Ark, but if you have it, please produce it. PiCo 04:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The references supplied, particularly reference 3 to the satellites, are not working references, nor does the reference title provided appear to have anything to do with this subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:196:4701:25B9:8912:2CF4:6A34:FC20 (talk) 14:29, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

WHAT IS THE TOPIC HERE?

This as far useless pseudo-article doesn't give an answer to the most basic and necessary question: What is it? Is there anything there, or is it just a shadow which only shows under specific lighting & perspective conditions?

Don't remove it from Wikipedia, because people want to learn about the topic - but from this "article" they can't learn anything useful yet.

I have removed from the lead the misleading noun, "object". Not even "structure" is as vague a term as required here; who has a better word? A set of ice surfaces are kind of a nothing, which photographed from a certain angle might remind those inclined to do so of a certain shape ("Jesus on a slice of toast"-style). Arminden (talk) 13:28, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

There is none. This should be just deleted. 2001:A61:5D3:7B01:8D80:9244:9CE4:6A8C (talk) 00:42, 7 January 2024 (UTC)