There is one glaring problem here; something in the past cannot have scientific method applied to it. You cannot test the past. You can only look at the current evidence and make a guess. You should know that.
Here, I'll explain it for you so that you hopefully won't make this mistake again. See, this is what we normally attribute to a lack of familiarity with scientific methodology. A layman, looking at the topic, might arrive at the same conclusion you did - we cannot test the past. Unfortunately, the layman is incorrect - we
can test the past. We cannot test the past in the sense that you might be thinking of, in terms of throwing it into a laboratory and performing some controlled experiments on it, but that isn't a requirement of science. Science is
predictive. When a theory is established, its purpose is to make predictions, whether they are about things that happen, things that will happen,
or things that have already happened that have not yet been explored. This last bit is key. If a prediction is made and evidence is later turned up that validates that prediction, the theory becomes stronger. If a prediction is made and evidence is turned up that
invalidates the prediction, the theory needs to be altered (or in the most damning of cases, discarded). So, for instance, someone studying whether or not the flood has occurred
can test that prediction by saying "If a global flood had happened, we should find
X," where
X is a certain piece of evidence that a global flood had occurred.
In other words, your criticism is understandable as you probably are not too familiar with how scientific study is conducted, but that doesn't make it any less invalid.
BTW, you still haven't told us about 'Cydonia'.
I think it's an interesting topic.
Cydonia? It's a geographical region of Mars. My title, however, is a reference to the song "Knights of Cydonia" by Muse.