Who is the arbiter of what is possible and what isn’t when it comes to unexplainable phenomena? How can anyone say there is not an ancient civilization that existed in the distant past that still isn’t here somewhere?
Now you seem to be asking for proof of a negative. Or rather, to be challenging others to provide such a proof, secure in the knowledge that they can't. And you're right, they can't.
When one makes a statement, or presents a hypothesis, the task is not upon others to disprove it; the task is on oneself to present compelling evidence
for it. In situations where there is evidence of related topics that seem to make the hypothesis unlikely, evidence for it must be very strong indeed in order to be compelling. You've offered no such evidence, only unsupported claims, pseudoscience, and astrology. (Astrology, of all things!)
The exception is the question of the sphinx's age, based on erosion patterns. You've presented evidence there. But even that is based on an unsupported statement that the extreme age is the only possible explanation for the erosion that is present, and that this one fact is sufficient to outweigh all other evidence that supports the lesser age. Thus, evidence it may be, but
compelling evidence it is not.
As an illustrative example, one might make a claim that we share the earth with intelligent beings of pure energy. I can't disprove that. One might make the seemingly logical claim that, since "energy" has little or no inertia, it can make the full speed, zero radius turns that objects have been reported making. One might then conclude that those rapidly turning objects are beings of pure energy. I still can't disprove that assertion. I do know quite a bit about many forms of energy, how it is transferred and transformed, etc., and that knowledge gives me good cause to doubt that pure energy creatures exist, so anyone wishing to put that hypothesis forward must do so with very strong, very compelling evidence.
"That's the only explanation", one might say, "and since it's the only possible explanation it must be true." A more accurate statement would be that it's the only explanation the one making the claim is aware of; that is quite likely because the one making the claim has not made any worthwhile effort to find any other. The claim that it's the only possible explanation is not, itself, evidence of any sort at all.
The claims you've made have been as little supported as my made up claim about energy beings. If your claims on this subject have been met with derision, these are the reasons. And, in my considered and rather well educated opinion, they are good reasons indeed.
