Follow the link in post #154.
All I can comment on is the TV special which aired these claims. They provided no evidence of the use of human tools on these stones, in the TV special. They merely showed people claiming that these stones "looked man made", which was an entirely subjective opinion. Closer inspection undermined that opinion.
So the head linked in post #154 is a natural formation?
There are lots of natural rock formations that can "look man made" (they used one of them from New Zealand for the Amon Sul sequences in "The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring" movie, for instance).
The Empire State building looks man made too. It's because it is man made. Is the Sphinx man made or natural?
What would be convincing evidence of human origin would be rocks with tool marks on them (unlikely if these humans did not have metal tools), or carefully interlocked stones forming a structure, which obviously could not be formed naturally.
How about a face with eyes and a headdress.? Hard to see tool marks on something that's been underwater for thousands years and undoubtedly been slightly eaten away.
The TV special I saw showed a single, very large rock formation, with some interesting shapes, which, however evocative, were easily the product of natural rock formation and erosion.
Yep. Is the Sphinx natural too?