Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Japanese Underwater Pyramids: Natural or Manmade?

page: 1
9
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 27 2005 @ 07:24 PM
link   
I first learned of the Japanese Pyramids by watching a documentary on the History Channel from the Incredible but True series. I found a thread from 2003 where this was discussed, but no one questioned whether it was natural or manmade.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Kihachiro Aratake discovered the formation in 1995 off the island of Yonaguni under 60 feet of water. The formation really does not resemble a pyramid, but that is what most people refer to. The main structure called the Monument and is 500 feet long and 8 stories tall.



Other similar formations have also been discovered in the local vicinity, which leads many to believe that they were created by humans. The last time the area was above water was during the Ice Age when the sea level was lower, approximately 10,000 years ago. At this time, humans were believed to be nomadic hunter gatherers, and a structure like this would require organized social behavior.

Jim Mower, an archeologist at University College London, said: "If it is confirmed that the site is as old as 10,000 years and is man-made, then this is going to change an awful lot of the previous thinking on southeast Asian history. It would put the people who made the monument on a par with the ancient civilization of Mesopotamia and the Indus Valley."

Here are some sites with pictures and articles.
www.cyberspaceorbit.com...
www.cyberspaceorbit.com...
www.subversiveelement.com...

In the documentary they showed evidence that the formations could have been made by water erosion. Along the coastline at the waters edge, the rocks have step like erosion similar to the underwater structures. But, when I look at the pictures of the structures, it appears to me that there are obvious signs of unnatural carving. I am not a geologist or archeologist, but would like to point out a few features, and let people respond as to what they think.

First of all, they mention in the documentary that interior right angles cannot be natural, and I don’t see how this could have been created in such a straight line and perfect width.



This sheer wall is many times taller than any naturally formed step.



These holes are of the same size. If they were natural, what are the chances of them being the same size? In the article they state the holes may have been postholes.



The natural steps when formed also leave rubble at the base, and in this picture you will see there is none.



Many of the pictures like this one show steps, but they don’t seem to be organized, as in a normal staircase. So this leads me to believe parts of the structure were formed naturally.



So, I have to agree with the conclusion discussed in the History Channel documentary that the main parts of the structures were probably formed naturally, but then humans worked on them. They carved channels and postholes, and cleared the rubble. They cut the sides of the structure to make the sheer walls. Maybe they erected wooden structures on top of them.

So let me know what you think. Any additional information would be appreciated.




posted on Feb, 27 2005 @ 07:55 PM
link   
My view on it is that people will go to great lengths to refute any evidence that would mean they have to change their mind. Erratic archeological finds are very troublesome to them, and generally get filed away, so they don't have to see them. It is willful blindness, imho. To see the actual, physical, and highly probable to be genuine artifacts that demolish the cherished theory, and boldly say that it must be fake, is what I see being done. It is their position that the literally thousands of pieces of anomalous material are all just a string of coincidental anecdotal evidence, is hard for me to fathom.



posted on Feb, 27 2005 @ 09:33 PM
link   
It's a man-made structure, and if it is dated 10,000 years ago, it's within the time-frame when a very advanced civilization existed on this planet, the Vedic civilization(during the Rama empire) and it's likely it was a remenant of this civilization. However, it could have been another civilization other than Rama. I just don't know about any others, but as Pyramids are not vedic architecture, it's likely it was another civilization.

It does not matter what anyone tells you, because if they tell you it is natural, there is something wrong with their education. I have already proven that this civilization existed in my other threads. However, I do get a feeling I've wasted my time and nobody really cares for the truth.


[edit on 27-2-2005 by Indigo_Child]



posted on Feb, 27 2005 @ 10:19 PM
link   
CONTRARY TO THE ARTICLE, THESE WERE DISCOVERED PRIOR TO 1965, NOT IN 1995!!!
When I was a child on Okinawa in 1965 (ten years old) airmen in my dads squadron who were sport scuba divers would tell stories of an underwater city off the coast. There were also stories that the island of Okinawa was under cut my many unerwater tunnels and caverns.



posted on Feb, 28 2005 @ 05:50 AM
link   
Yup, their probably man made structures and at least 10000 years old.

The idea of an ancient and advanced (for the time) civilisation the existed around the coasts of Asia and was graudally wiped out by the end of the ice age is an excellent one.

This could well account for the myth of Atlantis (great civilisation gets flooded) or Noah's ark (the people who fled the drowned cities would tell stories to their children, fostering the myths found around the world)

An amazing thing, a genuine lost and advanced civilisation that could lead to a rewriting of ancient history.



posted on Feb, 28 2005 @ 11:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
It's a man-made structure, and if it is dated 10,000 years ago, it's within the time-frame when a very advanced civilization existed on this planet, the Vedic civilization(during the Rama empire) and it's likely it was a remenant of this civilization. However, it could have been another civilization other than Rama. I just don't know about any others, but as Pyramids are not vedic architecture, it's likely it was another civilization.

It does not matter what anyone tells you, because if they tell you it is natural, there is something wrong with their education. I have already proven that this civilization existed in my other threads. However, I do get a feeling I've wasted my time and nobody really cares for the truth.


[edit on 27-2-2005 by Indigo_Child]


Indigo_Child, can you provide some links to these threads, I did a search and only found one on Vedic mathmatics. I would like to find out more on these guys. Thanks.



posted on Feb, 28 2005 @ 12:15 PM
link   
Looks like a human hand was involved. There are some very square angles.

Roper



posted on Feb, 28 2005 @ 12:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
It does not matter what anyone tells you, because if they tell you it is natural, there is something wrong with their education. I have already proven that this civilization existed in my other threads. However, I do get a feeling I've wasted my time and nobody really cares for the truth.


I always enjoy your posts on ancient Indian civilization, I for one appreciate your effort.

I wouldn't rush to say this is a man-made structure though, it doesn't seem to have any man-made qualities and there's a lot about it that says it's natural. The 'stairs' that look so impressive are all irregular heights and most are way too large for a human to use - most also lead nowhere.



posted on Feb, 28 2005 @ 01:08 PM
link   
One of the first thoughts that come to mind may be, and bear with me here, is that it may have something to do with the Watcher/ Nephilim culture that was supposed to that existed some thousands of years ago. Just recently, I purchased a book titled, "From the Ashes of Angels," and it details across the Middle East how many cultures share some of the same stories of their creation, albeit each one with their own twist. It is a very interesting read, but I have to actually read it from cover to cover.



posted on Feb, 28 2005 @ 01:38 PM
link   
I remember watching a show about this particular topic. If my memory serves my right, I believe they found carvings of figures in an area they called the 'theatre'. I believe the show was on national geographic or discovery civilization. I'll try to find it.



posted on Feb, 28 2005 @ 07:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by IKnowNothing
I remember watching a show about this particular topic. If my memory serves my right, I believe they found carvings of figures in an area they called the 'theatre'. I believe the show was on national geographic or discovery civilization. I'll try to find it.


I think your refering to "The Stage", and yes there was what appeared to be two eyes carved into the side, and a head dress along the side. I was going to mention this but could not find any pictures. They discribed the stage as being a square structure, 70' by 70', with another square block on top. I think they said maybe it was an alter. There were also some markings that may have been writing, but I don't know. There was a series of three or four symbols, but they were not very organized. They looked like scratches possibly. Sorry, I looked for pictures, but could not find them.

The show I saw was on the History Channel, Incredible but True series, titled The Japanese Pyramids.



posted on Feb, 28 2005 @ 08:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by mythatsabigprobe
I wouldn't rush to say this is a man-made structure though, it doesn't seem to have any man-made qualities and there's a lot about it that says it's natural. The 'stairs' that look so impressive are all irregular heights and most are way too large for a human to use - most also lead nowhere.


I would agree, if the stairs were the only features, and because there is evidence they can be created naturally. But in my original post I could only find a few pictures of the features that look manmade. I will keep looking and try to add more. It was not any one feature that is compelling, it was that there are several in close proximity that IMO supports my conclusion.



posted on Feb, 28 2005 @ 09:38 PM
link   
I found a picture of the pair of eyes, called Yona Face. It doesn't show it but in the documentary, they point out the head dress on the side.



Found it at this site:
www.s8int.com...

This one is called the Twin Towers.



This one shows a semi circular form.



I think these show further evidence that humans probably carved these into the structure.



posted on Mar, 1 2005 @ 04:28 PM
link   
I think it belongs to an as yet classified civilization. After all, they hardly resemble anything from any cultures I've seen (correct me if I'm wrong), and the Japanese language is rather different from other Asian languages. I've studied Japanese, and let me tell you, it is nowhere near Chinese, Korean, or Thai.
Linguistic Scholars even say that the language has no roots, it's just "there" from nothing.

Perhaps the Japanese Islands are what is left of a much larger mass, and the people there are the survivors of a long gone civilization. Japanese technology is pretty advanced, their swords and sword techniques being much more efficient than that of Westerners.

However, they were still using swords, bows, and arrows up until a missionary brought them guns. Which they developed into their own style, then bought American guns and cannons, and further developed those.

I wonder how much research has been done into Archeaology in Japan. Being a wet climate I doubt there'd be many remains of cities, but... you never know.



posted on Mar, 1 2005 @ 05:46 PM
link   
From the pictures, these formations look like they have definitely been worked on by man. I know that the whole region is very dynamic due to volcanic and seismic activity but I doubt some of the more compelling formations could have been caused by "natural" causes. It makes you wonder though, how fast these formations were swallowed up by the sea. Was it a gradual process that took hundreds, if not thousands, of years or was it rather quick? If the latter, is this why we don't find any other similar structures nearby in coastal areas. It also makes you wonder if we should not be studying nearby, submerged, coastal areas around the globe, more closely, looking for signs of ancient civilizations. For example, after the tsunami in Indonesia, artifacts from an ancient port city in India were unearthed.

www.abovetopsecret.com...'



posted on Mar, 1 2005 @ 07:49 PM
link   
here is my 2 cent........there is sooooo much evidence for this being man made that it will never..... can never be shown to be so....no matter how much evidence would sugest that it my be man made. the area that this has been found has been underwater for 10-12 thousand years...so some would say. more importantly..what researcher that is dependant on govt funding and funding by large corps, will say ANYTHING that could possibly contridict mainstream research??

as one dives into ALL the research about ancient earth history, one WILL see that things are not what we have been lead to believe...........

"..some are so hoplessly dependant on the system that they will fight to protect that system.."



posted on Mar, 1 2005 @ 08:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by skychief
From the pictures, these formations look like they have definitely been worked on by man. I know that the whole region is very dynamic due to volcanic and seismic activity but I doubt some of the more compelling formations could have been caused by "natural" causes. It makes you wonder though, how fast these formations were swallowed up by the sea. Was it a gradual process that took hundreds, if not thousands, of years or was it rather quick? If the latter, is this why we don't find any other similar structures nearby in coastal areas. It also makes you wonder if we should not be studying nearby, submerged, coastal areas around the globe, more closely, looking for signs of ancient civilizations. For example, after the tsunami in Indonesia, artifacts from an ancient port city in India were unearthed.

www.abovetopsecret.com...'


Skychief, it looks like your links were changed with a new article, must be a circular. But there is another thread on the India discoveries.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

I have also heard of other possible underwater civilizations elsewhere, and will investigate. If I find any definitive sites that haven't been discussed, I will do additional threads.

I think what the Japanese Pyramids tell us is that there is a large part of history that we are just starting to learn about. I know alot of people aren't interested in this, but I think it's very cool.

BTW, had to change my avatar, hope this doesn't confuse anyone.

[edit on 3/1/2005 by rwatkins]

[edit on 3/1/2005 by rwatkins]



posted on Mar, 1 2005 @ 08:50 PM
link   
These ruins are fascinating... I for one don't believe for a second that nature created the ruins. As to what did I don't even want to speculate because I don't know enough to do anything other than muddy the waters.



posted on Mar, 2 2005 @ 09:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sugarlump
These ruins are fascinating... I for one don't believe for a second that nature created the ruins. As to what did I don't even want to speculate because I don't know enough to do anything other than muddy the waters.


I know what your thinking, that maybe aliens built it. The picture of the eyes probably got you thinking, because it looks like an alien. But what the picture doesn't show is that on the side is a head dress, kind of like long flowing hair. It looks more human if you look at the whole thing. I've never seen a picture of an alien with long hair, although that would be funny.


I think if it was built by a more advanced race or aliens, there would be more complex structures. The Yonaguni site only has simple construction.



posted on Mar, 3 2005 @ 01:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by rwatkins

I think if it was built by a more advanced race or aliens, there would be more complex structures. The Yonaguni site only has simple construction.


like an upside down pyramid?


I don't like the name Pyramid. They look more like mounds.
Whatever this means, it means a BIG chunk of history is missing.

Oh and another thing, I was talking to my Japanese teacher today about this. She said that Korean is very similar to Japanese. Same Grammar structure and a few words. Japan and Korea are very close. Is it possible that a civilization, pre-dating the Chinese civilization existed here?

The only problem is, the only explanation is that the water level was once much lower. Japan didn't break off of Asia, it was formed by volcanic activity and the smashing of two plates. Last time the water would have been low enough would have been somewhere around the ice age (not sure if before, during, or after).

I also remember, from my Asian history class, that the first Chinese emperor (First ever, Qin dynasty) introduced a lot of advanced technology to China. Perhaps something bad happened in the region of Korea and Japan, resulting in the fall of an empire (or the splitting) and the first emporer of China was from that empire.






top topics



 
9
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join