1) The contest has a very specific standard for evidence. Just because I went there and saw no such city existed doesn't mean that gets me a million bucks. That's my testimony.
2) Even going back, I need a high standard of evidence. They want irrefutable proof. That means I'd need to have some way of, in a photographically-secure way, guaranteeing I was there, and some kind of temper-proof photos or similar. That takes time to figure out.
This contest is great since anything submitted will be discredited. They'll claim they proved their existence. It does no such thing. In the rules, they say they'll only post entries online they find amusing (in other words, not the best ones), they decide if the evidence is irrefutable, and that the contestant waives the right to sue / contradict that judgement.
I hope you see the problem here. They'll claim to have generated proof of existence (hey, no one can disprove it), without providing people time to do so, and with tools to bury any proofs which would convince others. They'll post the comical ones, and be done with it.
