Lee Olsen Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Rebby Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Lee, did you read my article?
>
> Rebby, did you read the article that started this
> thread?
> Did you read my references? I don't see that you
> have added anything new.
>

Yes, of course I read that article - back when it first came out. I also watched the interview on ABC and excerpts from his lectures on YouTube, read the expedition reports, caught up on recent research on the hydrological history of the Black Sea (which I've been following since Ryan and Pitman's book first came out), and waded through a couple of dozen of the huge number of media reports that spun off from the ABC interview. Since you cannot, it seems, be troubled to read my article, here is how I summarized that media flap:

"Nevertheless, Ballard’s ill-advised sound bite was merrily picked up by dozens of news outlets, and treated as actual news; in the process, the details were predictably mangled. Ballard was searching for the Ark. Ballard had discovered submerged villages and shipwrecks from the time of Noah. Ballard was proving the Bible was true. Etc. Some reports included descriptions of the “finds” at Site 82, but did not dig deep enough to realize those “finds” had been discredited. Very few mentioned that the Deluge Hypothesis was controversial, nor that it was largely falsified. Some Bible literalists criticized the hypothesis for not being sufficiently faithful to Genesis. Some Christian sites were smugly pleased with hard scientific support for the Bible’s historicity. The Atlantis/Lost Civilization crowd got into the act as well. The only area of agreement, and also the bit that will stick permanently in the popular imagination, was this: famous archaeologist proves the Great Flood really happened."

I repeat: as an experienced and theoretically media-savvy superstar, Ballard should have known better.