WRONG WORDING

The title itself is wrong. There is no ark there. What is there is soil, or more accurately ship-shaped soil/rocks. 

    Viking Ship

(world-archaeology.com, Amy Brunskill; Flipboard)

To call the next sample "Viking Ship" is wrong because there is no ship there. What we can find there is a ship-shaped soil formed by natural geophysical activities. 

The question is, where did the natural geophysical activities take the shape?

Some may theorize that it's itched by nature accidentally, the way scientists claimed for the ship-shaped mound in Durupinar site. 

But, people who are exposed to various natural formations will claim natural geophysical activities took the shape from a ship, most likely man-made ship. 

This is where both the camps of Wyatt and antagonist scientists got wrong. The Wyatt camp is still insisting that it is the Noah's Ark despite of the fact that it is a ship-shaped soil/rock formation, whereas antagonist scientists are keep insisting that nature accidentally itched the ship-shape & horribly claim that a few grams rock samples represent the entire ship-shaped mound. 

To archeologically completely determine the ship-shaped structure in Durupinar, archeologists must destroy it, the way they destroyed the Viking Ship-Shaped Structure, which means destroying the major evidence (the ship-shaped formation) in exchange of archaeological dig findings, and this is where the provincial government of Turkey intervened because destroying it to prove it is a kind of destroying the major fossil and they do not allow it to happen. What the Turkish government allows is to scientifically study the ship-shaped structure without destroying it, and some archeologists seem do not want any other scientific approach to study it except by destroying it, and sadly even making lies by a conclusion not conclusive. 

They even used the strong stand of Fasold that there is no Noah's Ark had been found in the site, and in fact Fasold testified in 1997 in an Australian court that the Ark has been found is "absolute BS." 

Why? 

Because for Fasold it is the fossilized remains of the Noah's ark and not the ark itself. 

And yet, a certain liar scientist is trying to change this history, a history that for Fasold this is a fossilized remains of the ark.