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.

 

RUSSIAN EXPEDITION explores 80-100 feet high underwater manmade structure

page: 2
16
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 24 2009 @ 04:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by kidflash2008
reply to post by sunspot0
 


Thank you for sharing the video. I am glad it is not translated so many of us can make our own conclusions. I agree it is natural, with some obvious quarry activity going on at the site. As one person has stated, this area was above water over 10,000 years ago and could have easily been used to quarry material needed for building.


Actually, there's a thread about this right here at ATS that clearly states the site sank sometime around 2,000 years ago. Seach it out. It was posted by Cormac MacAirt.

Of course, that means that it would certainly have been above water prior to that, for how long we don't know.

But the Appalacian mountains have been above sea level for millions and millions of years. Go look there for signs of "ancients." Yyou won't find ny there either.

In fact, I have a rock in my pocket that has been around longer than the Appalacians, maybe it's got a spark plug inside of it.

Harte




posted on Aug, 24 2009 @ 05:00 PM
link   
i think its supposed to be 80-100 feet deep* not high



posted on Aug, 24 2009 @ 10:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Harte
 


Sorry bro but I'm not buying it... Theres way too many "coincidences" here for me to believe this is a natural formation...

Although I have the feeling that regardless of wahts found, you'll still deny it.




[edit on 24-8-2009 by ls1cameric]



posted on Aug, 24 2009 @ 10:18 PM
link   
в глубине ryleah Ктулху ждет!

could you imagine in the great cthulhu came out of an anti chamber. Just a humorous thought. But could you imagine in Lovecraft was on to something would that not be something?



posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 03:04 AM
link   
Lovely footage.

But if it was a human strcuture, what was it?

there are no:
'rooms', halls, streets, passageway, nothing.
Walls -NOPE, if they are gone, there would be teir rubble next the steps, and nor is there any "imprint" of a wall on the floor which would be left behind.
annexes-nope
food storage-nope
Animal enclosure-nope
housing-nope
temple columns-nope
No "strutural remnants" to what the alleged structure was...
the 'steps' lead to what.....? nuddah

It could have been a flat open air temple ie stairs leading to a flat surface, open air with No additional structure added by humans, thats possible granted, but the top isnt flat. That also means the community utilised a naturally formed structure, so kinda defeats the purpose of the thread.....

I'm reminds me of Galways "Giants steps" perfectly natural formation from volcanic activity, that for eons was explained with mythology.



posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 03:39 AM
link   
I hate Youtube
Well most of the time








Images courtesy of the Morien Institute
www.morien-institute.org...






Perhaps they were called away before they could finish it?


Yonaguni Photo Gallery
www.bibliotecapleyades.net...

COMPARISON

Huge steps to big for humans... that also go nowhere





Terraces and steps: prehistoric rock-hewn structures at Sacsayhuaman and nearby Qenko in the high Andes mountains of Peru

Now explain to me the purpose of the above two examples and leave your hexagonal basalt columns out of this... its getting old and 'weathered' down...

Besides my rocks are better







[edit on 25-8-2009 by zorgon]



posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 04:21 AM
link   
Oh my, I can't believe there are some people in this thread that believe this is a natural formation!

Clearly, you either haven't seen the entire documentary, or you are so indoctrinated and brainwashed into accepting "proven science" that you cannot see the clear evidence.


It really is astounding how many people simply refuse to accept the truth because it doesn't fit their neatly packaged, know-it-all existence.

Saying this is a natural formation is like suggesting Stonehenge is a result of erosion.

Such people wouldn't recognise fact if it slapped them on the ass, and then if they eventually did open their minds just a crack, they'd find a way to weave the existence of it into their perfectly packaged pre-existing "certainties" (as delivered by indoctrinated science, of course!)



posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 12:00 PM
link   
i still say natural erosion and water current over years and years made it that way.
But ive been wrong before lol



posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 02:47 PM
link   
Great footage.

Yes, nature does make some beautiful things, but everything I've seen on Yonaguni leads me to think that they were artificially made. It surprises me to see so many in this thread that think otherwise, but each his own I guess.



posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 02:58 PM
link   
Looks like a DROPA ESTABLISHMENT BUT WHO KNOWS they were here a long time ago along with others, that may not be man made but it definetly is not a natural struture. NICE THREADSTER THANK god we GOT ANCIENT CONNECTIONS IMAGINE WHAT THEY WANT TO TEACH US.



posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 03:02 PM
link   
ats note: some structures built by others may have doors that many cannot comprehend how to open or even see um just sayen......also the dropas last know entrance was around the sichuan province in a guarded area today in china. so that was close to were they interacted with the hanz and zopaz tribes look em up think the area is still guarded today????????

[edit on 8/25/09 by Ophiuchus 13]

 

Mod Note: All Caps – Please Review This Link.

[edit on Tue Aug 25 2009 by Jbird]



posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 03:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Harte
 


If it was above water 2000 years ago, then the water currant could not of made the formation as many have explained. This rules out a lot of natural formation as the people could have used it as a quarry.



posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 03:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by detachedindividual
Oh my, I can't believe there are some people in this thread that believe this is a natural formation!


How's your geological knowledge?

I haven't looked into this enough but it could well be a natural formation. I guess more work needs to be done to see if there are any tool marks, any out of place items, check the talus slope for evidence etc.
Certainly though, volcanic outcrops can appear 'unnatural' to those predisposed to excitement!

...or it could be enhanced by humans.




posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 04:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by ls1cameric
reply to post by Harte
 


Sorry bro but I'm not buying it... Theres way too many "coincidences" here for me to believe this is a natural formation...

Although I have the feeling that regardless of wahts found, you'll still deny it.


Well, since you've made up your mind without even considering any evidence, I won't bother to try to enlighten you.

Have a nice ignorance.

Harte



posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 04:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheAmused
i still say natural erosion and water current over years and years made it that way.
But ive been wrong before lol


While natural cleavage of rocks can lead to angular sections, Water erosion does NOT cut square or rectangular shapes and certainly not that size. Water is a wave motion and thus carves out pockets, not makes perfectly angular surfaces..

I am surprised at the fervor people show to come up with 'it must be natural' then toss silly notions like 'water erosion' into the mix

read the sign on the door...'Deny Ignorance'



posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 04:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Ophiuchus 13
 
The Dropa Stones were fictional and acknowledged as such by the guy that wrote about them. Google David Agamon and Von Daniken. Not one person in the account ever existed and half the Chinese names were made up. The hand of Daniken strikes again!



posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 04:24 PM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 


Term "erosion" also applies to cracking of the material along the fault lines. Just thought I'd point it out.

I've seen very large rocks of cubical shape. I do not think these were man-made.



posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 04:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kandinsky
reply to post by Ophiuchus 13
 
The Dropa Stones were fictional and acknowledged as such by the guy that wrote about them. Google David Agamon and Von Daniken. Not one person in the account ever existed and half the Chinese names were made up. The hand of Daniken strikes again!



The stones themselves are not fictional. Thousands of ancient discs have been found at burial sites. This is common knowledge. The term "Dropa" is what was a misnomer, because they were found all over China and not just with the "Dropka" dwarves of Tibet.

[edit on 25-8-2009 by Skyfloating]



posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 04:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 

I'd have to check Sky, I think it's open to discussion about those stones
I'll have another look, it's been a long time...



posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 04:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by aorAki
How's your geological knowledge?


pretty good
And yours?



I guess more work needs to be done to see if there are any tool marks, any out of place items, check the talus slope for evidence etc.


Göbekli Tepe, Turkey

Built before we had invented pottery



Q: How do they know Gobekli Tepe is so old?

A: The archaeological team at Gobekli, working under Klaus Schmidt, has used radiocarbon analysis on the soils adhering to the stones. The analysis shows that the main stones at Gobekli Tepe were erected between 10,000 and 9,000 BC. The characteristics of flint arrowheads found here confirm these dates.

Q: How could hunter-gatherers build something so complex?

A: Farming did not start in this area until 8,000BC. It is therefore certain that hunter-gatherers did build Gobekli: there was no one else around. Klaus Schmidt (right) speculates that large bands of hunters congregated here during the construction. (Bones and arrowheads support this thesis.) They then dispersed, perhaps returning to Gobekli at specified times of the year.
pic

Q: Why was the site buried in 8,000 BC?

A: No one knows. But the way the dust is packed around the stones shows that Gobekli was entombed deliberately, and with some care.


Hunter gathers did carvings like this?... With what tools?



her is the site, uncovered and still buried graphic



Of course many archaeologists will tell you that it was built for 'religious purposes' though nothing at all was found at the site... no pottery, no tools, no signs of human habitation... nothing but some bones and arrowheads that could have been dropped by later users ( I cannot find any study that has dates the bones to the same time period)

Point is there are many secrets still buried

www.thelivingmoon.com...



Certainly though, volcanic outcrops can appear 'unnatural' to those predisposed to excitement!


Yes the flogged to death hexagonal cleavages of a specific form of basalt that RARELY forms the hexagonal columns (Giant's Causeway, Devil's postpile, a few others) that skeptics ALWAYS use to make a point yet never ONCE have they offered proof of WHAT KING OF STONE is on site... is it basalt? Is it granite? Is it softer sedimentary rock?

Granite does cleave into angular blocks... like these cliffs

BIG PICTURE

But as you see wind and water round off the edges in a few short years. The reason is granite consists of quartz (hard) feldspar (soft) and Biotite Mica (flaky) so it erodes quickly and unevenly

You made the comment "How's your geological knowledge?" implying YOU have some..

Well show me a sample of granite blocks in nature that are as smooth and as square and so close together and we can talk about 'natural' Its easy to say nature makes some interesting shapes... but you can't use basalt columns to compare to granite blocks and expect your 'geological knowledge' to have any credibility, nor give you the ability to make an informed opinion if you don't even know the rock type of the site, or the processes that effect that rock





top topics



 
16
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join