You wrote (in reply):
> "They sure do.... as most advanced textbooks on structural geology will tell you or anyone else who actually bothered to look it up in the first place. It's amazing how many people don't seem to have a clue about how rocks deform in the earth's crust.... but then that's just ideal for those who proliferate this type of "no natural, only can be man-made" stuff.
So you are an "amazingly" advanced and fully-trained Geologist, withall or without, which means as you infer...that even I don't have a clue about what I have tentatively proposed.
Seems as there is a no-contest condition before we even start!
(However, may I offer my apologies to you, because in my ignorance I didn't realize your superb qualifications, impressive knowledge and wisdom on this particular subject)
Meanwhile, I have consulted with my brother (who himself is also a qualified Geologist, but not so amazingly...just an ordinary degree, because he didn't prefer to go for the much higher stuff), who on this very issue agrees with me entirely and without reservation that such unnatural-looking structures, as having been observed from Space, do not look "natural" at all.
I can also assure you that on this and other relevant matters, we have had many disagreements, so there are no family sympathies or related issues involved at all.
Joking and facetiousness aside :-)
Quite frankly Archai, I am astonished by your above remarks.
HAVE I HIT A NERVE SOMEWHERE?
It would appear that my tentative or even putative (if you like), "explanation" as to the demise of the mysterious Pyramids of the Panticolla Region was not just a passing comment, as I originally intended it to be.
>The only explanation for these particular anomalous structures
>(if indeed implying artificial structures which they appear to
>be), at least in my understanding, is that for some reason or
>other, in not so ancient of times, the Earth itself must have
>tilted on its axis a few degrees (maybe 10 to 20 degrees or so)
>and this entire region moved quite suddenly from a temperate to
>a tropical environment.
> "Really.... and just how much geological evidence to the contrary do you think you are overlooking or are completely unaware of in order to make that seem valid a concept to yourself?
(See what I mean by your seemingly intense investigative and self-opinionated response?...or shall we raise another dedicated Topic to discuss the matter in more detail?)
None at all actually!
Let me say this:
In the memory and recorded history of Humankind, the Earth and its occupants have suffered many natural catastrophes.
This fact alone I think, you must surely be in agreement.
Further and in addition, it is quite evident to me that at least one (or perhaps more) of these catastrophes involved a Polar Shift.
The evidence is clearly there.
However, contrary-wise, here we disagree.
So, what else would you like to propose as a feasible explanation.
If you want any "geological evidence", may I suggest that you read 'Earth in Upheaval' or even 'The Genesis Flood'.
Further, perhaps you might travel the world a bit (if you haven't already done so) and discover the evidence first-hand, as I have.
Anyway, no matter.
In your view therefore it would seem that the Muribecca Pyramids are themselves just normal "natural" formations and there was never any "Polar Shift", unless of course such an event occurred hundreds of thousands or even many millions of years ago.
Of course, such a suggestion is always very feasible.
I shall therefore have to agree to disagree with you.