/sci/ - Science & Math

>>16080281
Unfortunately, it is very difficult to prove that something is artificial outside of certain conditions; and scientists operate under a "horses not zebras" mindset.
Let's use the Pyramids as an example. Let's say we discovered the Pyramids without all the historical baggage of them. What would we think of them? Initially, the mass media would be abuzz with "WHO BUILT THESE?" speculation, but this would quickly die down as 'rational' scientists point out how unlikely it is for such a large structure to have been built by primitive populations, point out there are no explanations (because we're starting fresh, mind you) for how they were built, and conclude with the structures only coincidentally looking man-made and far more likely just being natural formations. Any resemblance to bricks is just coincidence.

And while this seems absurd, it happens all the time. Pic related was reduced to nothing more than a few hilly mounds that people didn't even realize were artificial until some schizo archaeologists started poking around, and then even then there's wild debate over similar mound structures that dot a large area of the American southeast.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DthZkPqacwE
None of this involves aliens, none of this involves cryptids, none of this involves dead species - and yet scientists still insist on 'Horses not zebras'. Imagine that but trying to connect some weird plastic shards with the skeletons of a tailless primate.