a reply to: hellobruce
well, i dont know where he is, but the main issues are interior planar surfaces, and anything over a certain mass,
hardness is a factor, and theories about constuction, created by people who carry laptops as their heaviest encounters.
then theres the issue of tools, basic geomeotry, developmental and imported metallurgy, without pi, apparently, so no understanding the circle
actually, rare examples, but one is enough to throw a hypothesis.
examples, balbek, gobekli tepe, great pyramid, whatever is proved in black sea, caucasian mountains, then even more speculative material in s. america
and the east. now submerged remains. the chronologically of the undersea remnants would help but its not accessible, but the sea level records should
most of it will sit within, nicely, but there is the carbon dating issue, just an unfortunate side effect from a tremendously important technique, but
physically thats all weve got.
mostly it comes down to the philogy vis a vis sample data.
it shouldnt be a data set subjected to 'prove it', but also it cant be claimed it has the answers.
not concrete anyway, but as our tech improves and the bodys of data grow, then the mystery will clear. i hope.