Racho Wrote:

>
> Along this line...the evidence for lost civ is
> either lying all over the ground, shattered by
> whatever forces, or in the remaining
> constructions, vases, cut marks, drill holes, and
> all that.

Well that's the problem - it isn't laying all over the ground, shattered or not, that is the problem we have no problem finding tens of millions pieces of evidence for other Civilizations but for this invisible one - nada. zitch, nothing. Civilizations leave massive amounts of evidence behind.

As for intellectual...why is it that,
> aside from a few others here, strations in cores
> etc. aren't addressed?

They have been this idea is decades old and his been debunked - now if YOU want to believe it go right ahead. The fact you reject the evidence is your problem not mine.

>If we don't have the tools,
> cranes to replicate or achieve what we know came
> about thousands of years ago...ancient advanced
> civ which was destroyed fits even though most
> simply can't accept this theory.

No the much easier theory to find evidence for is the existing civilizations did it. So this invisible civilization popped into existence then went around doing all the stone work in Egypt, Mesopotamia, Middle East, South America etc., for thousands and thousands of years - left no evidence of its existence, then pop out of existence a few hundred years ago huh?

That is all they did for thousands of years cut rocks and moved them......
>
> If you've followed the evidence...you should be
> very familiar with Dunn and Ben's work along with
> the Randall's and Foersters.

I'm familiar with Foersters have found it childish and unscientific.

> Is it your conclusion
> that they are incorrect in the majority of their
> conclusions?

Yes