All I want to add is that a competent geologist can tell you anything you want to know about any hill or mound of a similar size if s/he spent two hours on it and came away with six core samples. Especially 17 meter deep samples.

None of those pictures speaks of anything other than 'natural formation'. I have been on many a construction site, on the level and on steep slopes, and I have seen all kinds of combinations of overburden (ground cover or topsoil) and rock in varying strata. When rock on a slope is eroded, it frequently erodes in a fashion that resembles steps; this is how rock naturally erodes and weathers. (As a matter of fact, I have never seen it erode or weather in any other way; but I can't use that to discount the possibility entirely.) The core samples taken by the geologists would have revealed whether or not any manmade layers were present, and as we never heard about anything like that, one can only assume that there was nothing to indicate any kind of human intervention. That is the type of find that can make a geologist's career -- the whole world would have known.

The fact that there are no 'real' scientists, universities, etc. involved in this speaks louder than any 'findings' that come from the site.