Multiple links are great, but they all refer back to the same random guy, Michael Tellinger, who is not a serious archeologist of any sort. He’s actually kind of a crack pot who makes his living selling his unsupported claims to the gullible.
There is no legitimate science that claims these ruins are as old as he claims. As for the “alignments” you can see they just drew lines and looked for some random stone out of a field of random stones to line up. Good grief.
You bet I’m going to attack your source because your source believes:
The moon landings were fake
Rockets don’t work in the vacuum of space because there is nothing to “push against”
Ancients used sound waves to lift massive rocks
Some other guy replicated this technology in 1988 with a device the size of a pocket watch
The stone circles in South Africa acted as “magnetrons”
The stone circles generated massive amounts of energy to control the weather
A psychic told him human sacrifices were performed at Adam’s calendar
Ancient humans were anywhere from 30 to 150 feet tall
And I’ve only skimmed the first hour of his 3 hour lecture he sells tickets to.
So yeah, I’m going to attack the source. I’m sure hopeful you come back to tell me why I should believe this guy’s “facts”.
But it’s not facts, it’s the theories apparently of one guy of which this one guy has several that are on the level of Ancient Aliens. Is that not troublesome when it comes to trusting his claims as scientific fact? Additionally, ‘liking’ the facts has nothing to do with anything, because facts exist independent of our subjective views. I for one don’t like the facts of climate change, but my dislike does not make them irrelevant or disappear.
They are facts. Tellinger may be a nutt but none of you can dispute the age of the sight, the alignments with the the cardinal directions or with the astronomical alignments.
It is what it is, an ancient site, it’s not like we’re talking about Ancient Alien tech or any other scifi here.
Such sites have been found all over the globe now dating back as far as 75,000 years which is far beyond anything we thought just a few decades ago.
Modern satellite, radar, lidar, and computer analysis have led to a great many such discoveries just over the last two or three decades.
Why is it when people disagree with you, what they say is “a mindless rant” but what you say isn’t? I think a lot of what you post is a mindless rant. You can’t show this to be untrue.
What exactly am I claiming? It seems you are the one claiming that the site is 75,000 years old.
To make that claim you refer to me to a crackpot, in your own words, and expect me to somehow disprove a crackpot.
Yes; the site what discovered before Tellinger. So what? He is the one who decided the site was 75,000 years old. Or was it 200,000 years old. He can’t make up his mind.
What evidence supports the dating of the site? Only the word of a crackpot. What am I supposed to do to refute the word of a crackpot? Please tell me.