How we investigate

Our core rules

1. Separate object from interpretation. The Durupınar formation exists; “Ark” is an interpretation.
2. Separate anomaly from explanation. GPR, chemistry and drilling produce observations. The historical identity requires a further argument.
3. Separate error from fraud. We do not call people scammers merely because they are wrong.
4. Separate role from authority. A fundraiser is not a geologist; a geologist is not automatically an archaeologist; an archaeologist is not automatically an expert on biblical theology.
5. Use the same standard on critics. If our side repeats a rumor, mocks instead of answers, or cherry-picks, it gets labeled too.

What counts as “scam” here?

The word is used narrowly. We use it for documented deception or clearly misleading practices—not simply for an extraordinary belief. Where the record only shows unsupported claims, we say “unsupported,” “misleading,” “overstated,” or “pseudoscientific,” depending on the evidence.

Why the design is colorful

The original project looked like a technical report. This version deliberately uses the visual language of an investigative magazine: strong labels, timelines, evidence cards and warning colors. The point is accessibility, not sensationalism.