Honestly the ". Landing strip". Theory always felt a bit too tidy to me - like someone watched Chariots of the Gods once and never recovered.
That said, I'm not ready to bin it entirely. The lines are massive and deliberately flat, which is suspicious whether you're a sceptic or not. The mainstream ". Ritual pathways". Explanation doesn't exactly set my world on fire either - feels like archaeology's version of ". We don't know, so... religion?"
What gets me is the sheer precision without modern tools. I spend enough time squinting at grainy trail cam footage in Norfolk trying to spot anything unusual, and I can barely keep a straight line across a field. These people carved kilometre-long figures visible only from altitude. That's not nothing.
The landing strip idea probably doesn't hold up technically - the ground's too soft, the geometry's wrong for any craft we'd recognise - but I think dismissing the broader question (were these meant to be seen from above, and by whom?) is a bit hasty.
Anyone here actually looked into the more recent LIDAR surveys? Apparently they've found hundreds of new figures in the last few years. Changes the picture quite a bit.
Curious whether people think the ". Ancient astronaut". Angle is genuinely dead or just unfashionable right now.
