>It does look a bit weird. However, the fact alone that mankind was supposed to have had nuclear energy at some moment in the remote past doesn't by itself discredit the entire site. After all, our ancestors did impressive feats in other areas. For instance, the explanations of how the gigantic pyramids were built with only slave labor are, IMHO, not very credible.
>
>On the other hand, it might be difficult to prove that an atomic explosion did occur in the remote past; and the site presents it as a fact. I deem it a waste of time to follow the link and look at the "proofs".

While it is entirely possible that a 10,000-year old civilization may have been highly advanced, there are too many missing pieces for me to accept a nuclear weapon in that time frame. First, the concept of standardized measurements is relatively recent, at least in our own history. What little I know of nuclear weapon construction is that it requires a great deal of precision technology (not to mention uranium, which isn't exactly lying around in open fields). Another missing piece is reliable energy sources to power that technology. The last missing piece, of course, would be remains of those former civilizations, beyond legend and unexplainable phenomena. Amazing discoveries have been made over the years; surely these legendary civilizations would have left a physical clue somewhere?

I followed some of his links and too many were dead. Also, I can't seem to find anyone (other than the website owner) that recognizes "terracycles" as a viable theory. The site just ain't passing the smell test.