Depends on how long it took them to do it. If they did it quickly, sure, its impressive. If it took them say 150 years less so.

People dragged stone from wales to build Stonehenge, because it was 'important enough' to not use local stone.

The mountain isn't exactly as flat as many of the 'Alien' theorists suggest either, rather they rely on a selection of photographs that support their argument, rather than more detailed and close up photographs (apparently).

It also could certainly be the case that its an old delta or river basin, prior to seismic activity that created it and the mountains around it - as a result of which when the mountains formed, it would be 'flat topped', and debris spread. Certainly, geologists seem to think there is evidence that of old tributary flows, and rivers on the flattened top.

Which is seen in a number of mountain ranges elsewhere, all across the world.

Of course to the Nazca, it probably looked amazing, this flattened mountain top, which they'd never seen and became a sacred site. Evidence of their gods etc.

But its probably just an example of a particular kind of mountain formation process, that occurred ages before they even existed.

The mistake is we assume mountains are all peaked, because we, as the general public, don't know much about mountains, and how they're formed. We assume they're peaked because most of the ones we've heard of are peaked.

But actually there are plenty of flattened mountainous plateaus across the globe. Thing is, we think mountains, we think mountaineering - but mountaineers only go for the peaked mountains - the challenging ones.

Turns out flattened top mountains exist in most mountain ranges.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Of course the trouble with the whole alien subject is that people are not generally neutral about it. You have the 'I want to believe camp' who are more likely to see any ambiguous evidence as positive and you have the smug camp who scoff at every bit of evidence because it does not fit with their belief system of what is real.
To make matters worse you also have the debunkers, the hoaxers and the plain bonkers.

I think the ancient alien theory is flimsy to say the least but it does throw up questions about man's history and our grasp of it. With UFO's and aliens in general I think it helps if you have had some personal experience.

For me, genuine UFOs can only be alien, from the future or military misdirection.
One trouble with the latter is that some of these sightings involve 'craft' that performed maneuvers that no conventional aircraft can get anywhere near doing.

The people that know don't talk and don't care what we believe. There have been some deathbed confessions but skeptics would have to meet an alien before they believed and some not even then.

If we have technology that can stop and make turns of 90 degrees going at enormous speed then that is a huge story in itself. It also begs the question as to what else we have.

Edited by Hrolf The Ganger (03 Jul 2017 8.52pm)

I'm not sure if its conclusive to that specific incident, but its a common enough phenomena in geology that there are 'plateau topped' mountains, and that geological research typically points to these being river basins etc prior to tectonic shifts. The Nasca mountains do lie on a tectonic line as well.

The evidence doesn't have to be conclusive though, it really only has to be more plausible than the alternatives and fit into commonly held knowledge of geological formations.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

But cutting through all the if's, what's, and maybe's around peoples motivations and limitations, what are people seeing in the skies? They aren't figments of imagination and they can do things that conventional aircraft can't.
Why are the military so keen to keep it all quiet if it is not vastly advanced technology or alien technology or both?
I don't think a psychological explanation is sufficient. It is also impossible to speculate about the nature or motivations of aliens if they really have visited here. We just can't use human 21st century logic to dismiss it as unlikely.

Clearly there is money to be made from the UFO phenomenon but are we really saying that it is all nonsense? Because only one event has to be real and there are people who have been in high places who seem convinced.
Are they risking their reputations for dollar?

That's where there seems to be a definite step change in the area..not the usual kooks (although admittedly there are still many around) but instead, generally normal and more recently professional individuals(can you get more professional than a Minister For Defence?) that are now speaking out.

You're both right about evidence (or the lack of it) and that its convenient for us all to wait for irrefutable proof that there's something else at play.

As Humans we dont like change, we like to feel secure...which is one of the premises in the Documentary.

Challenging theories is healthy though...we should never be complacent about the normal state of things, otherwise we'll never evolve as a species....you never know that piece of evidence could be just around the corner waiting to be found...

The Voice of Reason In An Otherwise Mediocre World

I found the bits about the energy patents particularly interesting...and plausable

The Voice of Reason In An Otherwise Mediocre World