Talk:Kʼàakʼ Chiʼ

Doubts
There has been a media rush on this, but it is mainly fueled by social media. There are no reliable sources at the bottom of this. For a healthy dose of scepticism see this article, well worth reading, and the only one I've found that actually spoke to a Mayanist (David Stuart). Simon Burchell (talk) 11:47, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Another More Complex Site 2.75 Kilometers Southwest 225°
There appears to be another site .2 kilometers at 150° south of the indicated area. Also, a much larger and far more complex structure can be seen at 2.75 kilometers at 225° southwest. John Huebner (talk) (Cartographer/Surveyor) 9:09, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Elevation diagram
I've moved the elevation diagram down to de-emphasize it a bit; can anybody explain why it is here? The co-ordinates given don't seem to bracket the site, so I'm not clear what it is supposed to tell us. Moonraker12 (talk) 23:16, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd get rid of it. Simon Burchell (talk) 06:32, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry. Corrected coordinates.  Girardelli G.  [[File:Roundel of Argentina.svg]] Escucho  15:49, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I notice the elevation diagram has been removed now, but the issue still remains as it is still on Commons and in use elsewhere.
 * First, I see you changed the co-ordinates here before it went, but that then put them at odds with the co-ordinates on the file at Commons. So which are correct? The ones at Commons or the ones you put here?
 * Second, where does the information come from that was used to create the profile? There is no source given in the Commons file, nor were there any here; how is this image verifiable?
 * Third, the profile as amended shows (or purports to show) a cross-section of a spit of land extending into the lagoon/lake and is about half a mile from the location of the features indicated by the co-ordinates on the page; so what connection does the profile have to the subject of the article?
 * Can you shed some light on this, as without some satisfaction on these matters it will be necessary to propose the file at Commons for deletion as being non-Verifiable, (ie Original Research) and non-Notable (ie not connected to the subject here, or anywhere else) Moonraker12 (talk) 13:38, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I took the image off the page after comparing it with a track on the coords given on Google Earth, which showed no peak at all, rather a smooth drop-off towards the seasonal swamp. Simon Burchell (talk) 13:56, 18 May 2016 (UTC)


 * OK - I see with the new coordinates it is showing a cross-section of the peninsula that extends into the swamp. However, dropping this image into the article without comment gives the misleading impression that it is showing a cross-section of a pyramid, which it clearly is not - taking a profile using coordinates along the axis of the peninsula would tell a different story. Secondly, the peninsula is not the reported location of the satellite objects, making this just an arbitrary terrain profile in the general locality, about 0.5km to the west of the reported site. No coordinates are given in any of the three sources you have cited. Simon Burchell (talk) 08:45, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Forthcoming documentary and unrevealed possible discoveries
I've spent too much time on this already, someone want to add this? Doug Weller  talk 10:53, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Last Paragraph Is Confusing
The final paragraph contradicts itself. It suggests that the lost city both does exist and does not exist. It needs to be edited for grammar and clarity, please. 2001:569:731C:4300:F8E3:6D06:5E45:EB9E (talk) 02:03, 1 August 2022 (UTC)