I’ve written before concerning the underwater obelisks and pyramids Mr. Salichs shared with you and featured at your link:

http://s8int.com/WordPress/2013/01/05/4187/

I was recently showing them to an archaeologist friend and was he unable to locate them using Google Earth Pro (a $400 a year subscription upgraded version of the free one used in the videos). I just checked my own free Google Earth 6 and every trace of obelisks and pyramids off the Atlantic seaboard that are shown in Mr. Salichs’ videos are indeed gone. I have coordinates marked but nothing appears in those areas out of the ordinary anymore. While I could only find two obelisk-like structures using Mr. Salichs’ approach, there were dozens upon dozens of structures strongly resembling pyramids in that region. Now the landscape is free of any hint of such things.

So it seems that either the formations were glitches, or else Google Earth is hiding something. From what I’ve seen so far of Google Earth’s maps, I now tend to believe they were probably artifacts/glitches, and have since been corrected. I don’t know if you wish to include this update or not, but I wanted to make you aware of the situation.

Blessings in Him,
Jeremy S

I don’t know if F.M. Salichs shared any other “obelisk” -like structures with you, but looking on Google Earth in the area of the one in the video you shared from him on your blog, I recently found what appears to be another one. The coordinates:

Shorter Structure I recently ran across:

Coordinates: 38.124758, 73.291275 W

Height: approximately 490 feet

Taller Structure shared in video:
Coordinates: 38.452767, 72.143352 W
Height: approximately 800 feet

Additionally, looking to the west of the taller structure, there does appear to be many “pyramidal” -like structures. Some look like natural formations, while some do not. I offer no explanation, just something more to consider if it hasn’t been already.

jeremy s

Look, at the time of the article they had diproton’s skull etc. but did they have a print or a trackway confirmed to be diprotodon in 1901? I’m not sure. Here’s the point; there was speculation that the animal in question was diprotodon. They reproduced a pic of his skull in the article. The picture of pygmy and the print however was not of diprotodon per se –it was to quote the caption; ‘Enormous footprint of “Gazeka”, reconstructed from recent tracks”.

Now, as I say I’m not sure if in 1901 they had prints identified as diprotodon of the quality produced in the article. Certainly, taking the article on its own terms if they did they would simply have confirmed that the recent tracks match those scientists have already declared belong to diprotodon. So to continue to be very specific, the prints in the article are recent and fresh at the time and left by an unknown creature which is being called “gazeka”. From its description some speculate that it is a diprotodon and thus a picture of the skull of that animal is produced for the article. They apparently don’t have confirmed prints of diprotodon at that time.

I’ve simply come along later and compared, later casts of an animal confirmed by science to be thise of diprotodon and gone back to compare them with the 1901 “recent tracks”.

Regarding the other photo from Fortean Times, Percy Trezize, an acknowledged expert on “cave art” thot that this was a 10,000 year old cave drawing of diprotodon found on the ceiling of a cave in the Quinkin reserve, Brisbane. Naturally I think that while it cud be “ancient” its not 10,000 years old.