Core drilling already took place almost 40 years ago & the scientists who thought it was the ark had to conclude it was just a natural geologic formation. piped.video/_yaGFzt_wSc

From what I understand, we have a lot better ways to sample and more accurate idea of where to sample, etc. so I don’t think there’s any reason to bring up a 40 year old study when they are redoing it now. Just wait for results.

So more sophisticated technology can falsify the 40-year-old core samples that found bedrock at the surface of half the structure and bedrock at the depths where their radar found anomalies, which are at the same depths as the anomalies currently being asserted as not bedrock?

The 1988 work used water-cooled drilling, which likely washed away soil and corrupted the cores (leaving rubble/rock pieces). The 2026 program uses dry percussion/sonic-style core drilling that recovers continuous, relatively undisturbed stratigraphic cores without drilling fluids. 1988 reached only a few holes and a fraction of the current depths. Modern work is more extensive (inside + outside controls), guided by high-resolution modern geophysical surveys (GPR, ERT, specialized radar) that identified specific anomalies, right-angle features, linear structures, and voids as priority targets. Planned sonic drilling has been described in project materials as capable of greater depths (tens of meters). 1980s equipment and interpretation capabilities were more limited. Current work integrates multi-method data fusion (radar + soil chemistry + cores + planned visual inspection of voids), higher organic-content signals from recent sampling, and third-party lab protocols. The team also notes the absence so far of the continuous shallow bedrock expected under the pure “natural rock ridge + mudflow” model. The 2026 effort is presented as the largest permitted scientific expedition with university partnership and planned peer-reviewable data release, versus earlier more limited or less systematically documented work. Regardless of final results, I think we can all agree that this can settle a debate once and for all. Especially with quality analysis and university/turkish government partnership.

I've seen these claims repeated a number of times & every time I've asked for some kind of substantiation of their accuracy. Far short of substantiating them, no one even pretended they thought critically about them for a single moment. You gonna be the one to break that streak?