Why we don't see more obvious debris.

All, this is my second posting on this site. I earlier "poked the bear" on the Gallium topic.

I have people question why we don't see more artifacts. I like to compare it to the city of Joplin Missouri. For those of you in the states, you may remember it being decimated with an F5 tornado. When you look at before and after pictures, there is a major difference. There are many things that "disappeared". In reality, the debris was spread over a wide area. Houses leveled, cars tossed around. Some people were lucky to find much of anything. This again was an F5 tornado...The strongest and most deadly.

Now we move to Mars. We will likely never know what exactly happened but know it WAS a cataclysmic event. Personally, I'm going with an asteroid and Mars is closer to the belt. Let's say an asteroid or nuclear event happened. Maybe we could give it a rating of F500 or possibly higher. Add in a few hundred thousand years (or longer) of dust settling and expect to see very little.

In either event example above, there would be a massive amount of heat. This heat would have disintegrated most biological material leaving stone and metal.

The only way to solve this would be with manual excavation. Will it happen in our lifetime? Doubt it. Is NASA blowing smoke on a lot of what we get from them? Most likely.

Very good thoughts & I agree with most of them. also, many times I have wondered how advanced these beings actually were since there is so much stone work. were they just getting to the point of expressing their feelings thru artwork. rarely do we see huge I-BEAMS or glass objects. rarely have searchers pointed out anomalies that look like large vehicles. of course we are only seeing a very minute part of the planet and our chances of finding positive proof is limited. I still think that during a planet wide disaster there would be some structures shielded by mountains and underwater.