Full Breakdown
Search for Noah’s Ark at Turkey’s Durupinar Formation Enters New Phase
By Drooid · · How we work
Core Investigation
A research coalition led by Andrew Jones, founder of Noah’s Ark Scans, is conducting a multi-year scientific survey of the Durupinar Formation—a boat-shaped mound near Mount Ararat. The team, including Dr. Khosrow Bakhtar and partners at Sivas Cumhuriyet University and Agri Ibrahim Çeçen University, is applying ground-penetrating radar, electrical resistivity tomography, lidar, and deep-core drilling. Recent field work reached depths of more than 20 m (over 60 ft), extracting hundreds of soil samples for laboratory analysis. Investigators aim to determine whether subsurface features represent a man-made structure or a natural formation.
Background & Context
The mound was first noted by a Kurdish shepherd in 1959 and linked to Genesis 8:4. A 1996 study by geologists Lorence Gene Collins and David Franklin Fasold concluded the mound is a natural rock structure and that alleged “iron brackets” were weathered volcanic minerals. Those findings are frequently cited by skeptics.
Data & Statistics
- Length: approximately 515–538 ft (? 300 cubits).
- Drilling depth: > 20 m in multiple boreholes.
- Soil samples: reports range from > 300 to ? 1,000 specimens.
- Organic matter: interior samples contain about three times the organic content of exterior samples.
- Potassium: interior soils show ? 38 % higher potassium levels.
- pH: measurable differences between interior and exterior soils.
- Bedrock: no continuous layer of solid limestone or other bedrock encountered.
Official Statements & Responses
The team asserts that radar and drilling data reveal “organized patterns, corridors, and chambers” beneath the mound, which they interpret as evidence of a non-geological structure. Bakhtar described the anomalies as “extraordinary” and indicative of a single original object, though he stopped short of identifying it as a ship.
Criticism & Opposition
Collins and Fasold’s 1996 paper remains a cornerstone of scholarly opposition, labeling the mound “misidentified” and noting that microscopic analyses show only natural materials. Subsequent geologists argue the shape can be explained by synclinal folding and other tectonic processes. Critics note that radar signatures are ambiguous and that, without peer-reviewed results, the claim of a man-made structure is unsubstantiated.
Conflicting Reports & Gaps
Sources diverge on the exact number of soil samples collected. No peer-reviewed publication has validated the radar interpretations or chemical analyses. Crucially, no wood or definitive man-made artifacts have been identified in the cores; laboratory testing for organic residues and possible ancient DNA is still pending.
Verbatim Quotes
- “No bedrock or solid limestone has so far been identified in the holes drilled inside the formation,” — Andrew Jones
- “In archaeology, you deal with probabilities, and we’re inching towards what we believe we’ll have confirmation this winter after our soil analysis is done,” — Andrew Jones
What’s Next
The consortium plans to complete laboratory analysis of the soil cores this winter, focusing on organic content, potential petrified wood, and DNA traces of extinct animals. Pending those results, the team intends to drill deeper in the next field season and to deploy camera systems to image any subsurface voids. Jones indicated that the winter tests will guide whether further excavation proceeds.