It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Japanese Underwater Pyramid

page: 1
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 05:31 AM
link   
A mysterious undersea pyramid structure off the coast of Japan causes controversy - is this a natural geological phenomena or a man-made structure which changes the history books as we know them?

LINK TO FULL ARTICLE




posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 06:05 AM
link   
I think I recall reading a paper once that said site may have been built at a time when the sea levels were much lower - that might have been a coastal fortress. It's not really a pyramid in the terms you think of in Egypt and South America - but more of a raised platform.

I don't have enough information to make a educated guess as to the nature of the structure. I'd like to see a detailed topography of the immediate surroundings and the supposed structure itself, as well as a geological survey of the surrounding seafloor and an accurate measurement of just how far below the surface this formation is. Judging from the amount of luminosity in the water - I suspect this formation is in rather shallow water.

It's very easy to mislead people into thinking it's a man-made structure with only a few select photos, and letting the readers imagination fill in the blanks.



posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 06:16 AM
link   
There are a lot of threads about this topic. Like this one!:

thread



posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 06:46 AM
link   
reply to post by suziwong
 

I think these 'pyramids' or 'step temples' were discovered in the early Sixties by divers. As much as I read about them and especially looking at the pictures, I simply don't see anything artificial. There are straight edges, but nothing else appears artificial. The alleged steps range from a couple of inches to almost a foot in height, others are much deeper. The whole structure has the more random elements of nature about it rather than being man-made.

A good article by a diver offers a 1st hand account of exploring the area. He describes how the 'Japanese Pyramid'...


...for a blunt instrument some 500 feet long by 80 feet wide and eight stories tall, the Yonaguni Monument is an effective cutting tool: It seems invariably to divide its viewers into skeptics and believers.


Robert Schoch describes it as being a geological formation and questions why it's located where it is instead of being at the top of a cliff where fortifications are usually sited. Another problem I have is the lack of any signs of infrastructure nearby on the island. A building of these dimensions would show evidence of habitation in the area like villages, burials, tools, pottery artifacts etc.

Kimura is a solid academic, but very few people agree with him that these are 10 000 year old ruins. His Govt doesn't recognize the site as being significant. I'm not against the idea of ancient remains being found under water, the Library of Alexandria was underwater. I just don't see anything more than geology here...

reply to post by Lasheic
 

If you look at the .pdf I linked, there's a rather basic topography of the structure. You might find it interesting. To my eyes it offers no encouragement that it's artificial. Just a couple of unusual areas get focused on whilst the rest of clearly natural formation is overlooked.


[edit on 13-4-2009 by Kandinsky]



posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 07:42 AM
link   
Unfortunately, I don't have Adobe installed on this computer. That fact alone is likely odder than anything about these underwater ruins. However, since the time I've posted I've seen a few videos on Youtube - one from Japan with a 3-Dimensional reconstruction of the supposed edifice, and I concur with your analysis. Aside from some odd sharp angles, the overall geometry of the structure does not seem to indicate human craftmanship.

As I understand it, Yoniguni is a highly Earthquake prone region. Could it be possible that this structure once existed on land, and was mined or quarried for resources - thus producing the supposed "tool marks" - then later was cast out to sea during a landslide or other geological upheaval due to a particularly strong Earthquake?

The structure itself is, again as I understand it, mostly composed of sandstone - which does break in rather regular patterns. I'm looking into it, but offhand, do you know of any Japanese or Chinese penchants for using sandstone as accents to architecture or sculpture?



posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 07:57 AM
link   
Thats interesting. I wonder if the sea rose or the land sank? They look man made to me with all those strait edges.



posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 08:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Lasheic
 
The Ryukyu Island chain is prone to earthquakes and was once volcanic. It's possible that a tectonic shift has raised part of the island and sunk the other. I looked for images of rock formation on the Island itself and came across this. The farthest formation shows vertical and horizontal lines with sharp edges. To my mind certainly similar to the JUP, but still fairly distinct.


This paper describes Yoron Island of southwest Japan, a small raised limestone island in the center of the Ryukyu Island Arc chain (Fig. 1). Yoron’s geology mainly comprises Miocene to Holocene age carbonate rocks and deposits, uplifted to different elevations above sea level.
PDF Link and HTML Link

The references to tool marks on the stone seem to undermine the whole idea of the 'structure' being ancient. Would you expect 10 000 years of coastal tidal erosion to erase tool marks from limestone? The majority of claims I've read have come from Morien Institute. Tool marks, stone steps, temples et al. They even use Dr Robert Schoch as a supporting figure. If you read any of Schoch's thoughts on the matter, he is adamant that they are a natural rock formation.

I think we possibly have a similar case to the man with the 'Starchild Skull'. There's no evidence to support the extraordinary claims and enough to rebutt it, but they 'need' to believe. The myth continues and isn't doing any harm to the regional tourist industry



posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 10:25 AM
link   
if it were just the "pyramid" I would be totaly in the "its a natural formation" camp, but there are other things going on in the rykyu's.
There are the remains on an ancient culture in the rykyus, there are tombs that are extremely old.
There are also prayer circles on the islands and in the surrounding waters.
Some of the tunnels used by he japanese in their defence of okinawa were already there before the war.

I used to have a link to a page by a professor of arch. at the U of the Rykyus, that had some fascinating information on it.


There are also structures on other islands in the chain as well.


[edit on 13-4-2009 by punkinworks09]



posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 10:34 AM
link   
I have been very interested in this "Structure" For awhile and I agree the more it and others in the area are studied the more it does appear to be a man altered location.

But it may help the supporters of this possible site to refrain from calling it a "pyramid"



It does not look very pyramidal in shape when you stand back and look at the entire location. I believe there was an advanced ancient civilization about 12000 years ago.

No they didn't have DVDs and Ipods but they were an advanced megalithic era civilization that had to abandoned such locations as the oceans rose.

We find other proof for this sort of thing all around the world. There are locations where we find stone hinge type circles half in half out of water. Don't forget about the tire ruts on Malta running directly into the sea etc.



posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 11:42 AM
link   
reply to post by punkinworks09
 


Sandstone erosion doesnt account for the strange hieroglyphs found nearby though,does it?Also whilst searching around on this topic i came across this article

www.pureinsight.org...
.seems to add a bit more info on additional sites.
cheers
fotsy



posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 11:54 AM
link   
reply to post by fotsyfots
 


Those were brought up on another thread hwre, Hanslune pretty much showed they were not from the Yonigumi site.



posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 12:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kandinsky
Kimura is a solid academic, but very few people agree with him that these are 10 000 year old ruins. His Govt doesn't recognize the site as being significant. I'm not against the idea of ancient remains being found under water, the Library of Alexandria was underwater. I just don't see anything more than geology here...

You are quite correct except in one particular.

Even Kimura no longer believes in the antiquity of this natural formation.

Kimura now dates the submersion of the formation to around 2,000 years ago, as was reported right here on ATS by Cormac Mac Airt in a th4ead he started that linked to an interview with Kimura.

Kimura hangs on to the belief that some features on the "monument" were carved out by people, just now he figures it was at a later date,

Anyone that really wonders about whether this formation is natural or not ought to take a look at the geomorphology of Yonaguni Jima itself. This larger island is similarly formed of multiple right angle cleavages of the limestone bed from which both formations arose.


Harte



posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 12:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Harte
 

Hello Harte and thanks for the link. I realize that I've read it before the last time this subject passed through. Looking at the article, it seems to be all over the place. Within three paragraphs, it's offered dates of 2000 and 5000 years old. His reference to a painted relief makes interesting reading if it wasn't two years old. Would any results be out by now? No tools? no artifacts? No potsherds? No bones? On a limestone foundation where might they have gone? Clearly geological rather than artificial.

Maybe it's just Kimura's equivalent of the 'mysterious Bosnian pyramid?' It seems to be his only academic lapse of judgment



posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 02:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Kandinsky
 


There are tools and potshard and tombs on the islands in the rykyus.


The pyramid is not the only interesting structure on or around the islands. There are many things that have never been fully explained.

There are several underwater prayer rings as well as several on dry land.
There are other structures on other islands in the chain as well.
The stone object that is seen as a bust of a human head is very interesting.
Amid all of this square fractured rock, it stands out in its roundness.
The circluar rings of small stones on the seabed that correlate perfectly in size to prayer circles found throught japan, the rykyus and tiawan.


Dr Kimmura used to have a very good website detailing the finds in the rykyus.
I agree with the assertion that the pyramid platform is a natural formation that was woked by man. I think that it is not as old a originally believed but older than the current 2k year estimate.

At one of the sites elswhere around the island, they have found that the stones are resting on the seabed and not carved from the living rock.



posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 02:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by punkinworks09
reply to post by Kandinsky
 


There are tools and potshard and tombs on the islands in the rykyus.

The only undated artifacts I'm aware of on Yonagunui Jima are a handful of tombs.

All other material has been shown to date to well within the time the current islanders arrived, which, IIRC, was someime around 400 or 500 CE or so.

Correct me if I'm wrong here. Please provide references as well.



Originally posted by punkinworks09The pyramid is not the only interesting structure on or around the islands. There are many things that have never been fully explained.

It doesn't even resemble a pyramid of any type! Why do people insist on claiming this?


Originally posted by punkinworks09There are several underwater prayer rings as well as several on dry land.

Please explain what a "prayer ring" is, how we know these are "prayer rings," and provide evidence for their existence if you're going to stipulate what they are.


Originally posted by punkinworks09There are other structures on other islands in the chain as well.
The stone object that is seen as a bust of a human head is very interesting.

It only looks like a bust when you look at the faked-up photoshopped version that shows the "headdress" that isn't actually there.


Originally posted by punkinworks09 At one of the sites elswhere around the island, they have found that the stones are resting on the seabed and not carved from the living rock.

What does this statement mean?

There's no question that the "monument" is a limestone outcropping - sandstone to be exact, unless I misremember.

So other stones are "resting on the seabed" or whatever. Why is this significant? Stones don't float, after all.

Harte



posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 02:51 PM
link   
Well somebody correct me if I'm wrong but there does appear to be enough stone debris around the site that actually shows they fell off the "Site"


[edit on 13-4-2009 by SLAYER69]



posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 02:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kandinsky
reply to post by suziwong
 

I think these 'pyramids' or 'step temples' were discovered in the early Sixties by divers. As much as I read about them and especially looking at the pictures, I simply don't see anything artificial. There are straight edges, but nothing else appears artificial. The alleged steps range from a couple of inches to almost a foot in height, others are much deeper. The whole structure has the more random elements of nature about it rather than being man-made.

A good article by a diver offers a 1st hand account of exploring the area. He describes how the 'Japanese Pyramid'...


...for a blunt instrument some 500 feet long by 80 feet wide and eight stories tall, the Yonaguni Monument is an effective cutting tool: It seems invariably to divide its viewers into skeptics and believers.


Robert Schoch describes it as being a geological formation and questions why it's located where it is instead of being at the top of a cliff where fortifications are usually sited. Another problem I have is the lack of any signs of infrastructure nearby on the island. A building of these dimensions would show evidence of habitation in the area like villages, burials, tools, pottery artifacts etc.

Kimura is a solid academic, but very few people agree with him that these are 10 000 year old ruins. His Govt doesn't recognize the site as being significant. I'm not against the idea of ancient remains being found under water, the Library of Alexandria was underwater. I just don't see anything more than geology here...

reply to post by Lasheic
 

If you look at the .pdf I linked, there's a rather basic topography of the structure. You might find it interesting. To my eyes it offers no encouragement that it's artificial. Just a couple of unusual areas get focused on whilst the rest of clearly natural formation is overlooked.


[edit on 13-4-2009 by Kandinsky]



HAhaa, you cite 'straight edges' then go onto say that nothing appears artificial. Thats a bit of a catch-22, when you consider that straight edges DO NOT APPEAR IN NATURE, let alone hundreds of times in just one photograph...

Go outside your house right now (field trip yay!) and look at every bit of nature around you. Try and spot 1 straight line.

Lets play count the straight lines:



How many did you count? How bout in the next one:

images.stanzapub.com...

Still can't find any???

images.stanzapub.com...

I have spent 100's of hours scuba diving, especially off the coast of western Australia including the great barrier reef. Never once have ever encountered one straight line in my entire life.

Unless the pictures, and the testimony in the article are completely fraudulent, then what is there to argue in this case?


From Source
Tool marks and carvings have been discovered upon the stones (and documented) which indicate that they have were constructed rather than being natural stone structures.


Documented tool work? Case closed? I think so.

[edit on 13-4-2009 by king9072]



posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 03:00 PM
link   
reply to post by king9072
 


Look up cleavage and fracture lines in relation to geology.
Straight lines appear pretty often in nature, sedimentary rock tends to break along straight lines.



posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 03:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by RuneSpider
reply to post by king9072
 


Look up cleavage and fracture lines in relation to geology.
Straight lines appear pretty often in nature, sedimentary rock tends to break along straight lines.



Just look at the photographs, those steps are too perfect. Too many 'coincidences' would all have to occur at this exact spot to make this occur.

Statistically speaking, it is FAR more likely that it was created by a past civilization and buried underwater after a large earthquake, than it was created by chance in nature.



posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 03:13 PM
link   
reply to post by punkinworks09
 
Hiya Punkinworks, as far as I can tell the structure is a natural formation. Other than that, it's not buried deeply underneath earth and sand which is why I wonder why no artifacts have been recovered from the site. Can you post some links I can look at? I've had a brief look and found this Okinawa archaeology history site and this.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join