I don't see anything in the article explaining how they know what they found is a ship, versus some other kind of wooden structure.
If indeed they found anything at all (the photos could have been taken of anything, anywhere, since they are interior shots), they’ve got a good grip on the beanbag of history — at that altitude, what structure (made of wood no less) has been said to be waiting for some lucky finder for over four thousand years? It’s a burden of proof shift from their shoulders to those of the doubters. BUT currently I am among those doubters, since I don’t believe their claims of radiocarbon dating, period. WHERE was the RC dating done, WHO did it, WHEN was it done (it generally takes a while to get something like that done, and chain of custody of the sample, as well as provenance, are important, as is handling of the sample), and where’s the freakin’ report?
Once these explorers come clean about that — and assuming that there really is a legit RC date — I’ll be fine with that. Then the hard work starts of actually finding out what the structure is, what is its size, etc. If it turns out to be basically intact and large enough to fit the description in Genesis, then overnight it becomes the world’s largest tourist attraction, and the Turkish gov’t (the Muzzies also revere Noah, as the Bible was one of the works Mohammed plagiarized) will build a road and rail and hotels lickety-split.
If they come clean, and it turns out they made up the RC dating claim, then their entire claim will have to be regarded as b.s. by any reasonable person. Clearly they could have said, “we have taken multiple samples, we have a video footage of each sample being removed from the mass of wood, and we want to get it tested”. But they didn’t say that.