Pretty dubious. This is a Ron Wyatt claim, even rejected by many creationists who examined the site. Given the record of false claims I’d wait for a neutral expert analysis - which you won’t get from the people promoting the claims.
I don’t see how the new reports are any better, and Snelling raises other points that need to be addressed.
Again, even creationists have rejected the site. And for good reason. The scans don’t appear very convincing to me and - given the history of similar claims - I don’t see how I can trust the interpretation of the scans. Especially not with the evidence pointing to a geological origin.