Take the 2-minute tour ×
Skeptics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for scientific skepticism. It's 100% free, no registration required.

According to the Atlantean Gardens blog humans worked 3000 ton stones were found in Russia.

Example of Stones

The Rundown Live has more photos.

Dr Valery Uvarov thinks they are man-made. He is "Head of the Department of Palaeoscience, Palaeotechnology, and UFO Research of the National Security Academy of Russia".

Is this site from an ancient advanced civilization?

share|improve this question
1  
Just to be clear, in Russia there is Russian Academy of Sciences, which is an official and credible organization. There are also a few dozen of institutions which call themselves "academy", but don't have any affiliation with The Academy. They give each other medals, prizes, degrees, etc., but most of them are merely labels to add (unjustified) credibility and bloat the ego of their members. The most notorious is Russian Academy of Natural Sciences, which can boast of having prophets, remote healers, alien contactees etc as its members. –  sashkello Apr 22 at 22:55
    
How do you define "advanced civilization"? Any civilization is advanced relative to anything less advanced. –  Flimzy Apr 23 at 4:33

1 Answer 1

This is very interesting. I am going to elaborate on Valery Uvarov first.

Let's have a look at Dr Valery Uvarov. It seems very hard to get a biography of the guy, the only information I can find is:

Dr Valery Mikhailovich Uvarov is the head of the Department of UFO Research, Palaeosciences and Palaeotechnology of the National Security Academy of Russia, and has devoted more than 14 years to ufology as well as to the study of the legacy of ancient civilizations.

He is the author of numerous papers on palaeotechnology and palaeoscience, as well as ufology and esoterica, published in the Russian and foreign press.

So if he really is a specialist in Palaeoscience, that would make him the right person to assess this kind of phenomenon. I did a search for papers authored by him in English, however the only documents that match him are his books on ufology. This means that he hasn't published any papers in a reputable, international journal on Geology or Palaeoscience which makes me rather sceptical about his authority in the field.

The National Security Academy of Russia where he apparently works, is only ever mentioned in connection with him. So that means either he is the only member of that academy that ever translates the name into English or it's a made-up institute.

That is all the information that I can find about him. But given that he does not seem to publish in scientific journals (or at least international ones), never gives information on his exact education background and works at a fictitious academy, I doubt he is what you would call a credible scientist.

Now on the matter itself, are those stones man-made?.

The story about those structures seems to be pretty new, so I couldn't find much reliable information on how they could have been formed.

What makes you say those structures are not natural formations? If you look at this video of the site, it looks a lot less like a man-made structure.

There are plenty of similar structures that a layman would identify as man-made but that are actually natural. Examples are the Giant's Causeway in Northern Ireland or structures called tors, that look like piled up blocks.

TL;DR

Valery Uvarov doesn't have a scientific track record and is not a credible scientist. As of now, nothing indicates that those structures are man-made.

share|improve this answer
    
Did you include journals in Russian? –  rjzii Apr 22 at 19:47
    
No, I didn't, because I don't speak Russian. Would be nice if somebody could do that, it would complete the picture. –  drat Apr 22 at 20:13
    
@dart True, but you might want to update your answer to indicate you limited your search to English publications. The lack of peer reviewed publications is a potential red flag, but by no means proof that someone isn't an authority in their field. –  rjzii Apr 22 at 20:29
3  
@sashkello thanks, that seems to be consistent with my conclusion then –  drat Apr 23 at 5:55
3  
@rob yes, you are of course right, but I think together with all the other indices this makes for a pretty good case against him –  drat Apr 23 at 5:56

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.