>still is consistent with a XIX century tool.
Because it probably was one? Duh.
>how would prehistoric people would be able to make a XIX century metalurgy?
They couldn't, and if they did it wouldn't be in the condition it was found in in the 1930s. Limestone hardened around a 19th century tool, fucktard.
>No. They look like literal astronauts, like our modern ones, look up photos. They also depict airplanes and modern machines in amerindian gold statues.
I disagree with this. If you sift through every premodern picture, yes, you'll likely be able to find some that you can contrive as looking similar to modern technology. I'd be much more convinced if they gave detailed descriptions of something like the soil of Mars or the atmospheric content of Jupiter, or Kuiper belt objects.
>Also, how do you explain sumerian sculptures being identical to some mexican ones? (sculptures of annunakis).
They aren't. Beards are ubiquitous in Sumerian art, Mexicans depicted almost none because it was rare among their people.
>How do you explain the Vedas of the india telling about nuclear warfare and nuclear bombs in texts that date back to 5k years ago.
The Brahmastra was just an unstoppable attack (caused by a MAGIC WORD, mind you) that caused lots of collateral damage. Ancient people knew of natural disasters like volcanic eruptions, tsunamis, hurricanes etc. It's not surprising they'd have some concept of a DBZ style attack inspired by them.
>How do you explain nuclear explosions in the bible?
There aren't any. Stop being retarded.
>they even claim those subactuatical cities are completelly natural, even while is obvious they're artificial?
>they
Oh lawdy lawds.
Some "sunken cities" are accepted to exist, yes. This doesn't mean retarded /x/fags like yourself can't construe natural structures that look artificial as being actually artificial. This is just pareidolia.