Have We Found Noah's Ark? Dr. JJJ's Archaeological Scorecard
Dr. JJJ's Archaeological Scorecard · File No. 001
Have we found Noah's Ark? 0/10 −1
Reviewed and in collaboration with Dr. Scott Stripling & Wes Huff
The verdict: sensational claims, not science. Pseudo-archaeology until proven otherwise.
Tap any test to see the evidence. Each one ends with the bottom line.
01 Wood at depth, in contextThe one test that would change everything. Nothing has passed it. Not met
- This is the test that matters. Not soil. Not radar. Wood, deep in the formation, in context, verified by an independent lab.
- Their drill bit broke on a hard layer 4 to 5 meters down. That tells you the layer is hard. It doesn't tell you it's wood. Collins and Snelling both documented basalt and andesite boulders all through this formation.
- They say the soil inside the outline has three times more organic matter. That's what a hollow does. It holds water, and it holds organic matter. A wet basin and a rotted hull look the same in that test.
- Even the team doesn't agree on when results come. Andrew Jones said "this winter." Dr. Bakhtar's release said late spring 2027.
The bottom line
Show me wood cell structure under a microscope from an independent lab. Then we'll talk.
02 Cores that contradict the geologyThey claim no bedrock. They haven't shown their logs. Disputed
- This is their best new point, and I'll grant it's a real question. They report no bedrock in 12 holes.
- But in 1988, Baumgardner and Bayraktutan drilled the same formation and hit solid rock at 6 to 7 meters. Somebody's data is wrong.
- No core logs have been released. And they've drilled 18 meters of a plan that called for 75 to 100.
- Even if there's no bedrock, it doesn't help them. Collins's final explanation is landslide debris flowing around a hard basalt core. That model doesn't need bedrock underneath.
The bottom line
Release the core logs, hole by hole, and put them next to the 1988 logs.
03 Blind interpretation of the radarProprietary radar, no raw data, read by their own contractor. Failed so far
- Radar measures contrasts in the ground. It cannot tell you what a material is. It can't tell wood from wet clay.
- The radar is proprietary. No frequencies, no raw data, no processing method has been released. The full report is promised for November.
- Even Dr. Bakhtar, who ran it, said, "It could be a ship. It could be a spaceship." He was being honest about what radar can and can't tell you.
The bottom line
Hand the raw data to three independent geophysicists without telling them where it came from. If they all draw a ship, I'm listening.
04 An answer to Collins (1996)The peer-reviewed lab work is still unanswered. Not met
- In 1996 geologist Lorence Collins published the lab work in the Journal of Geoscience Education. His co-author was David Fasold, the man who had championed this site.
- Under the microscope, the "iron bracket" was limonite mixed with clay and quartz. The "walls" were natural bands of iron minerals. The "anchor stones" were local volcanic rock. The "gopherwood bark" was metamorphosed peridotite.
- The 2026 publicity argues against "bedrock" and "limestone." It never touches those thin sections.
- Collins later published a critique of Noah's Ark Scans' own earlier imaging. They still haven't answered his lab work.
The bottom line
Which of Collins's thin sections is wrong, and what's your lab result?
05 Peer reviewPress releases and TV interviews only. Not met
- Every result so far came through paid press releases, September 23 and October 1, and television interviews.
- Peer review is where a claim goes to be tested by people who don't need it to be true. This one hasn't gone there yet.
The bottom line
Publish it in a journal where reviewers don't know the authors. Collins did. Snelling did.
06 Dates that agreeNothing new from 2026. The 2023 dates don't help them. Pending
- No new radiocarbon dates have come out of the 2026 cores.
- In 2023, a team from Ağrı İbrahim Çeçen University and Istanbul Technical University dated clay samples to 3,500 to 5,000 years old.
- Their own vice rector, Prof. Faruk Kaya, said that dating does not make it possible to say the ship is there. The headline range referred to human activity in the area, not a vessel.
The bottom line
The scientists who ran those dates said they don't show a ship. I'll take them at their word.
07 Matches the biblical arkGenesis describes a box. This is a pointed hull. Not met
- Genesis 6:15 gives 300 by 50 by 30 cubits. The length roughly fits. The width doesn't. Proponents have to say the sides splayed out in the mud.
- The Hebrew word is tēbâ, a box or chest. The only other place it appears is Moses' basket in Exodus 2:3. Noah's ark was built to float, not to sail. A pointed hull is the wrong shape.
- Genesis 8:4 says "the mountains of Ararat." That's the region of Urartu. Scripture never names a single peak, so no site can claim a biblical address.
The bottom line
Genesis describes a floating box. This formation is shaped like a pointed hull. The text and the hill don't match.
08 One of a kindBoat shapes repeat across the same landslide zone. Not met
- Their first argument is the shape. It looks like a boat.
- But other streamlined boat shapes sit in the same landslide zone. Güner documented them in 1986. Snelling cited a Turkish Air Force photo showing more.
- If the shape proves it's the ark, Noah had a fleet. Genesis gives him one ark.
The bottom line
They'll say the others lack the same internal features. Fine. Then the shape proves nothing, and the internal features are their weakest evidence.
09 Results others can reproduceThe original radar couldn't be repeated. The new data is withheld. Not met
- The 1986 radar scan by Wyatt and Fasold took about 30 minutes, with no permit.
- In 1987 radar specialist Tom Fenner came back with proper equipment. He couldn't reproduce their results. He found a flat reflector, most likely bedrock.
- Fasold also used a "molecular frequency generator," brass rods that scientists did not accept as a measuring instrument.
- The 2026 raw data hasn't been released, so nobody can try to reproduce it.
The bottom line
Science that can't be repeated isn't evidence yet. It's a claim.
10 Survives the experts who checkedBelievers tested it and walked away. Not met
- This was never secular science against the Bible. The sharpest critics were believers.
- John Morris of the Institute for Creation Research concluded it was geology. So did Andrew Snelling. John Baumgardner drilled it and changed his mind. David Fasold co-wrote the paper debunking his own site.
- Turkey's own geological survey, MTA, published a 2025 report by Eşref Atabey calling it a landslide formation.
The bottom line
Young-earth creationists who want the ark to be real looked at this and said no. That should tell you something.
−1 Penalty: the diggers sell the tours$1,100 to $3,600 a person, while the dig is underway. Conflict
- Noah's Ark Scans sells 3-, 5-, and 12-day tours to the site. $1,100 to $3,600 per adult. Trips in July, August, and October 2026, while the excavation is still running.
- There's a donate button on every page.
- I'm not saying money makes it false. I'm saying the people interpreting the evidence profit if the answer is "Ark." That's exactly why you need independent eyes.
The bottom line
I'm not questioning anyone's sincerity. I'm asking for independent verification. That's the standard I hold myself to.
! Watch the wording: human activityThe university is testing for something far smaller than an ark. Heads-up
- Sivas Cumhuriyet University says it's testing whether "any evidence of human activity survives within it."
- People have lived in eastern Turkey for thousands of years. A shepherd's fire, a burial, a later shrine would all count. Fasold himself guessed ancient people may have honored this spot as the ark.
- So when the headline says "human activity found," hear it for what it is. Human activity is not a hull.
The bottom line
Humans being there and a vessel being buried there are two different claims.
The takeaway
We don't need a boat-shaped hill to trust Genesis. Jesus treated Noah as history: "For as were the days of Noah, so will be the coming of the Son of Man" (Matthew 24:37, ESV). My confidence in the flood rests on Him, not on a mudflow in eastern Turkey. Real places. Real people. Real events. And real evidence, tested honestly.
Jeremiah J. Johnston, PhDPresident, Christian Thinkers SocietyReviewed and in collaboration with Dr. Scott Stripling & Wes Huff