posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 03:40 PM
reply to post by Fedge
Well, it should be obvious why very few have posted pics about the issues they are talking about.
Nobody is really talking about the issues laid on the table anymore, but about the little realities we all seem to have in our own little minds.
Everyone is talking about what they believe not about what is actually there
. You can't post pics for those. Most times we can't even
logically convince someone else that what we believe in is real.
200.000 year old ruins?
Another wild claim with no proof whatsoever and no one ever tries to question the motives. It seems like nobody ever does in this day and age. We are
so caught up in our own little beliefs that everything else looks so irrelevant.
This is the "evidence" that these ruins are 200.000 old:
According to the discoverer they suppose to be aligned with Orion relative to the precession cycles as it would be seen from the night sky 200.00
These rocks supposed to have remained there untouched 200.000 years ago, including every small rock, because too according to the graphic presentation
they seem too play an important role in this type of "calendar".
Give me a break!
Even despite the fact that the discoverer admits he found one of those (and that was one of the biggest) not where it should have been but in some
distance quite far from this grouping where he proceeded to place it back because he found an impression this rock should had left in the ground.
Can we say far fetched? I would say extremely FAR FETCHED!
Even if indeed was 200.000 years old where is the evidence humans inhabited it? Certainly there are ruins of habitats but did we ever build things
Another claim versus the discoverers would be that city is not 200.000 years old is much much newer and was inhabited but not by humans.
Who can prove me wrong?
[edit on 3-11-2009 by spacebot]