[Philsworld]

Those who mock and scoff can’t seem to come up with a believable explanation as to the many anchor/drogue stones found within a few miles of the Durupınar Noah’s ark site.

[Elsie]

CLAIM: ... the many anchor/drogue stones found within a few miles of the Durupınar Noah’s ark site.

ME: HMMMmmm...

COPILOT: The "anchor stones" are one of the strongest arguments Wyatt supporters raise, but they're also one of the most disputed.

Supporters point to large pierced stones found around the Ağrı/Doğubayazıt region and argue they were drogue stones (ancient sea anchors) carried by Noah's Ark. Wyatt's team claimed some had crosses (really?) and markings and that clusters of them near the Durupınar formation represented anchors deployed after the Flood.

The problems are:

1. The stones are not unique to the ark site. Similar pierced stones are found elsewhere in Anatolia and have been interpreted as grave markers, memorial stones, architectural elements, or other cultural artifacts.

2. Distance is an issue. Many of the stones cited by Wyatt are not at the boat-shaped formation itself, but are scattered over a broad area. Critics argue that finding unusual stones within a few miles of a proposed ark site does not establish a connection between them.

3. Lack of archaeological consensus. Mainstream archaeologists do not generally accept that these stones have been demonstrated to be nautical drogue stones, much less that they can be connected specifically to Noah's Ark.

4. The Flood scenario creates evidentiary challenges. Even if a stone were proven to be a drogue stone, that would not by itself prove it came from a particular vessel, or from a vessel dating to the biblical Flood.

What's interesting, Charlie, is that the drogue-stone argument is actually stronger than some of Wyatt's other claims because it involves real objects that can be photographed and examined. The weak point is not that the stones don't exist. The weak point is the chain of inference:

pierced stone → drogue stone → ancient ship → Noah's Ark → Durupınar formation

Each step requires evidence, and most archaeologists believe the later steps have not been demonstrated.

---

One thing I've noticed when digging through Wyatt claims is that supporters often present the anchor stones as if they are universally accepted artifacts whose only possible purpose was maritime. The actual debate starts much earlier: many specialists aren't convinced they were ship anchors in the first place.