Is anyone familier with Jonathan Gray and his discoveries?

page: 3
2
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 07:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by JB1234
reply to post by Harte
 


Actually Schoch did not conclude that Yonaguni monument was a natural formation.. what he said was.... "I am not yet absolutely convinced that it is an artificial structure - - but in my opinion, even if it is primarily natural, it may have been modified by human actions in ancient times. This enigmatic structure merits more detailed examination"....



The more I compared the natural, but highly regular, weathering and erosional features observed on the modern coast of the island with the structural characteristics of the Yonaguni Monument, the more I became convinced that the Yonaguni Monument is primarily the result of natural geological and geomorphological processes at work.


I.e., natural formation.
Same source as previous post.


Originally posted by JB1234
To date that detailed examination has not taken place...since 1999.[/quo5te]
Not true.

Kimura continues to study the site to this day.

Harte




posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 09:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Harte
 


reply to post by Harte
 


My quote was from the same source you used.... I quoted his exact words from his conclusion!

Even if this was a natural formation originally he feels an ancient civilisation may well have utilised it and built on top of it.. No one seems to have explained what it's doing now submerged.

I'll leave other posters to read Schoch's final words of the paper to make their own minds up as to what he concluded.

“I am not yet absolutely convinced that it is an artificial structure - - but in my opinion, EVEN if it is primarily natural, it MAY have been modified by human actions in ancient times. This enigmatic structure merits more detailed examination"....

To my mind that is NOT a person concluding that "an enigmatic structure" is "a natural formation"... therefore this should be dismissed.

Kimura does indeed continue to study the site..but then his findings and conclusions are being questioned by other mainstream archaeologists who themselves as I said previously refuse to set any time asside TO investigate the site themselves, despite his requests.

edit on 15-9-2011 by JB1234 because: Added t in response of 2nd point



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 10:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by JB1234
reply to post by Harte
 


reply to post by Harte
 


My quote was from the same source you used.... I quoted his exact words from his conclusion!

Even if this was a natural formation originally he feels an ancient civilisation may well have utilised it and built on top of it.. No one seems to have explained what it's doing now submerged.

Kimura has explained this.

And, yeah, I know Schoch won't rule out that it may have been "utilized" by some ancient culture. However, how could this possibly be ruled out by anyone?

There's no real evidence of it, however. That might be beside the point, since the seriously powerful currents there may have swept away any decent evidence.

On the other hand, the site is just off the coast of Yonaguni-Jima. Where is the evidence of an ancient culture on the island that is still above the ocean?

Nowhere, that's where.

Besides, isn't it true that I could walk out into my backyard, pick up a stone, and exclaim "This stone may have been utilized by ancient North Americans!"? I wouldn't be wrong, would I? And nobody could legitimately claim that I was wrong, could they?

Schoch, for his part, states explicitly in the paper his opinion that the site is natural. He concedes parts of it could have been shaped by humans.

However, it's not a structure in the manner of a constructed structure. It is a formation of sedimentary rock, a natural formation that might have had some parts broken off by people sometime before 2,000 years ago. And this is what Schoch says, whether or not you personally choose to correctly interpret the English language.

Not exactly mind-boggling, that. After all, the Jomon culture from the mainland (which is a VERY long way off by canoe) was extant as early as 14,000 years before the site was submerged.

Harte



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 11:43 AM
link   
Yeah I've been a supporter of the 'natural and may have been modified by man' school for some time -the greatest weakness for a claim of a civilization is that on the island above it there is no sign of a 'civilization' - just traces of neolithic man having lived there for about 30,000 years AFAIR



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 10:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Harte
 


Surely of the whole area had indeed been flooded 2,000 years ago then why would you expect that a civilisation would now be apparent on the island.

If a Biblical world wide flood did indeed happen in the manner that Kimura & Gray put forward together with all the flood tales that many of the worlds civilisations hold in there histories..... then that particular ancient city and it's inhabitants would have been wiped out. It's like saying Pompeii was wiped out by Volcanic ash....but I'm not going to accept that what's underneath is man-made unless there's evidence above the Ash deposits of the same civilisation. I know that's a bit extreme but I'm using it to illustrate my point.

Also I note that Schoch acknowledges assistance at the end of his paper from Graham Hancock. He definitely thinks this is man made & more proof of a global flood as recorded in the Bible, the Koran, the Sumerian writings....In Asia/Chinese writings... even in the tales of North American Indian tribes, who have never ever seen the sea.

Compare the photos of Yonaguni to Cambay Ruins of India.





















Yet according to Nat Geo a few years back.. ... "neither the Japanese government's Agency for Cultural Affairs nor the government of Okinawa Prefecture recognize the remains off Yonaguni as an important cultural property, said agency spokesperson Emiko Ishida.

Neither of the government groups has carried out research or preservation work on the sites, she added, instead leaving any such efforts to professors and other interested individuals"



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 12:12 AM
link   
You are doing what most fringe believers do they show pictures without scaling that looks 'really architectural'
while in fact the ridge line would be difficult for a person to move around on. Of course the island would reflect the culture and have stuff on it - which it does, tombs and stone tools just no organized culture - you do realize how close to the shore this ridge is don't you?

Sorry no, there was no biblical flood, there were regional floods at various times. Geology destroyed the biblical flood concept in the late 19th century. It is kept alive by the creationists but has no scientific validity.



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 08:59 AM
link   
The first and third pictures aren't even real, yet you think people should consider even for a second what you claim to be true?

Harte



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 08:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Harte
 


As well as finding these pictures on archaelogical sites.. Daily Scuba Diving includes some of these pictures
as 7 wonders of the undersea world to go scuba diving to....

www.dailyscubadiving.com...

I would have thought if a pic was photoshopped, the site would not have used the photo, as surely divers would be rather annoyed to organise a dive to see an artifact that actually doesn't exist!

Although it is a bit confusing on that website, to see which photo they attribute to which site.








edit on 17-9-2011 by JB1234 because: typo



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 08:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by JB1234
reply to post by Harte
 


As well as finding these pictures on archaelogical sites.. Daily Scuba Diving includes some of these pictures
as 7 wonders of the undersea world to go scuba diving to....

www.dailyscubadiving.com...

I would have thought if a pic was photoshopped, the site would not have used the photo, as surely divers would be rather annoyed to organise a dive to see an artifact that actually doesn't exist!

Although it is a bit confusing on that website, to see which photo they attribute to which site.

edit on 17-9-2011 by JB1234 because: typo


Yes deceptive; a number of the photos appear to be of the known Egyptian sites but adding in the 'legendary' and new age art kinda is odd. I would suspect that the web designer was either sloppy, a fringe believer or just naive - having never been to any of these sites.



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 08:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Hanslune
 


I disagree... and what's more a number of Geologists are indeed questioning those teachings.

I am not a Creationist either Indeed the very first Scripture in Genesis states.. "In the beginning God created the Heavens(The Universe) & The Earth...that in iteslf means that the Bible states that everything had a beginning & that subsequent from that beginning, it could have taken millions of years to produce "The Earth" to that point before the rest of Genesis relates what happened in the next 6 Creative periods.

However I am not debating with a poster, who calls another an idiot.... You are entitled to your opinion and I respect that..... but I never have or never will resort to deriding another poster to try and prove the superirity of my point.



posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 02:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by JB1234
reply to post by Hanslune
 


I disagree... and what's more a number of Geologists are indeed questioning those teachings.

I am not a Creationist either Indeed the very first Scripture in Genesis states.. "In the beginning God created the Heavens(The Universe) & The Earth...that in iteslf means that the Bible states that everything had a beginning & that subsequent from that beginning, it could have taken millions of years to produce "The Earth" to that point before the rest of Genesis relates what happened in the next 6 Creative periods.

However I am not debating with a poster, who calls another an idiot.... You are entitled to your opinion and I respect that..... but I never have or never will resort to deriding another poster to try and prove the superirity of my point.


Some creationist geologists are challenging it based on faith, the science remain strong and unchallenged

I have checked and the word wasn't used, so it would seem you are making stuff up...I challenged your position, not you, since you are unknown but your position, is needless to say, right in front of us.



posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 09:12 PM
link   
reply to post by JB1234
 


I would like to learn more in regards to the pictures you posted on this thread.

Any links or more info would be greatly appreciated.



posted on Oct, 8 2012 @ 01:49 AM
link   
Interesting theories. But then again, not sure how I can believe any of it when there's a claim that Jesus wasn't real. I'm not religious. But Jesus was indeed a real man. He was witnessed by dozens of people, and documented in books by just people that saw him. It's unbelievable to claim he doesn't exist just because he is a main aspect in a religion, and since of course these people think religion is a no no, hence, all religious related aspects are false. While, in reality, though its not exact. The bible does have interesting explanations on the world, and what happened in it and when it happened.





new topics
top topics
 
2
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join