Based on my experiences with geology and the look of the thing, I have trouble believing it's a monument. I think he can redate it if he likes but geologic history in the area will still keep refuting the idea that it's a monument. I agree with Schoch in that article, who says that the angle of the photos tends to make the argument that it's artificial... that it's cherry-picking an angle to prove something.

Notice that you never get a full view of the place.

I quite agree, Byrd. I just find it interesting that the last time the Yonaguni "Monument" was brought up, many were overlooking Schoch's opinion in favor of Professor Kimura's about it being from around 10,000 years BP. One has to wonder if eventually he will agree with Schoch.

cormac

Dunno.

What I find interesting is that Schoch IS someone who believes in what we'd call "fringe archaeology." However, he's enough of a scientist that he will accept it when he is proven wrong -- he's not a blind and fanatical advocate of a concept.

I don't agree with everything he says or does, but he's managed to earn my respect for that. I think to some of the public he may be less controversial because he's accepting of some alternative theories (and he is the one who first suggested an older date for the sphynx.)

However, he's enough of a scientist that he will accept it when he is proven wrong -- he's not a blind and fanatical advocate of a concept.

I can respect that, even though I personally don't agree with his Sphinx dating.

I do find it somewhat hilarious and sad both that even here, at ATS, many people who have backed his dating on the Sphinx, mostly because it contradicts mainstream, have also dumped him like a hot potato because he has taken a more mainstream position on Yonaguni.

Contrary to the ATS motto "Deny Ignorance", it seems that many would rather "Deny Truth".

cormac

Contrary to the ATS motto "Deny Ignorance", it seems that many would rather "Deny Truth".

Deny ignorance? Here? I have noted that some posters not only don't deny ignorance they bow before it and offer it marital bliss.

The yanoguni "anomoly" is very interesting indeed.
If it is a natural formation it is still very interesting, that it could form in such discreet locations.
I personaly think that there is a good chance that it is man made.
There is also more than one site, there are others around yanoguni and some a couple of other islands.
There are also very interesting circular stone structures that have been found. They are similar in appearance and size to stone rings found on dry land in japan and the rykyu's.

They are called "prayer circles" and are some of the oldest known spiritual sites in japan.
People would gather at the stone rings to make offerings and pray. Many of these places have become the sites of sucessive temples.
I belive that they start to show up around 5-6k years ago.

On Okinawa there are VERY old tombs, in the 5000 year range. These tombs share some structural elements with certain structures found underwater near yanogouni.
Also in their defence of okinawa, the japanese didnt dig all of the tunnels themselves.
The made use of some tunnels that were already there, and there are indications that some of these tunnels are very old.

Since there are stalagmites and stalactites in under water caves, those caves were above sea level at one time.

The coast near here has sandstones, and we have earthquakes, but there are no examples of such straight lines and square inside corners.

Howdy Punkinworks

Straight lines in fractured stone formations is fairly common

The stone used at Nan Mandal are all natural but look manufactured.

What geologists agree with the Yonaguni ridgeline being man made?

It in my opinion it's a natural site that has a possibility of having been modified by man. Recently I've begun to weaken on the artifical stance, thinking it less possible.