posted on Dec, 12 2007 @ 03:54 PM
reply to post by Skeptik101
I am sure (in a personal way only, I do not know any scientist) that many scientists from different areas would be very interested in proof of a new,
older, civilization capable of creating such a construction at the time this was supposedly made.
It would change many things, but I think it is wrong to think that all
archaeologist, historians, sociologists, linguists, etc., etc., would
not be delighted with a find like this.
Also, if this "alternative history" is being ignored (or worse) by "mainstream science" (whatever that may be), where are those scientists that
are against "mainstream science"? In every science "branch" we can find scientists eager to find new, alternative proof of something, one of the
reasons being that it could be the ticket to fame (and money grants) to them and their studies. That is why they try to build a strong case when they
have a suspicion of a new, revolutionary theory, if they can convince enough people they can get enough money to keep on studying what they want.
I am not an archaeologist or a geologist, but looking at the area it does not look like those hills are pyramids (or even hills transformed in
pyramids), they look natural, and one of the things that makes me think it it's the distribution of the vegetation. If this place was a pyramid or an
artificially changed hill, the vegetation would not follow the same patterns as on the other hills around it, it would be different; this is one of
the ways of finding buried ruins, photos taken from above show that the different vegetation that grows over underground rocks or over areas more
recently covered with dirt trace the shape of those underground ruins/areas.