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: 4
16
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 12:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by tjack I'm sure I would be fully in the "it's man worked" camp.


Well I am not 'fully' in the man made camp, but still waiting for the 'naturalists' to back up their claim and show me these similar formations they talk about... because I have looked for years and cannot find any...

And I know my rock


Everytime I present a notion, I am hounded to prove my case..

I contend that turn about is fair play

Show me similar natural occurrences that have such sharp 90 degree angles and such smooth surfaces on that scale and we can talk


(PS that is not directed at you personally
)




posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 02:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by tjack I'm sure I would be fully in the "it's man worked" camp.


Well I am not 'fully' in the man made camp, but still waiting for the 'naturalists' to back up their claim and show me these similar formations they talk about... because I have looked for years and cannot find any...

And I know my rock


Everytime I present a notion, I am hounded to prove my case..

I contend that turn about is fair play

Show me similar natural occurrences that have such sharp 90 degree angles and such smooth surfaces on that scale and we can talk


(PS that is not directed at you personally
)



I'm trying to find some information and will post presently. Obviously there is quite a bit of information about the geology of the Yonaguni area and fore arc volcanogenic sedimentation.
This is intriguing enough to warrant further investigation.

....and yes, I know a bit about geology too Zorgon....atr least I hope I do as it's what my work is involved in

I like your work and your approach, I find it interesting so I want to look into this myself.



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 01:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by kidflash2008
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

Nah. If you look at the island of Yonagunui itself, you'll see the same kinds of geomorphology - except for where the stone is covered by soil and forest.

Yonaguni was never underwater, so why does it look almost exactly like this formation?

Because they are both part of the same limestone (sandstone) deposit.


the people could have used it as a quarry.

They certainly could have. There may be old quarries on the island as well.

But nobody was there in the ancient past, only (fairly) recently.

Harte



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 02:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Harte
Nah. If you look at the island of Yonagunui itself, you'll see the same kinds of geomorphology - except for where the stone is covered by soil and forest.


Water does not erode rocks in rectangular blocks. Water swirls and works out the weakest part of the rock first, it does not leave lond straight edges and flat surfaces at 90 degrees to each other. To make the assertion that these blocks were caused by 'water erosion' is absurd.

Here is what limestone blocks look like if left to surface erosion in a wet climate... you can clearly see the rills and pockets where water has washed out the softer material



No I have asked for someone to show me these similar forms arounf the island... so far its been all talk and no show...


Rocks of Yonaguni Island

If you go to google earth and go here 24° 27′ 0″ N, 122° 59′ 0″ E takes you to Yonaguni island and 100's of tourist pictures. The rock cliff are mostly on the side towards the ruins..

What I see is normal natural water eroded gray limestone rocks. Only one area even has anything slightly similar... I did an image search on google... likewise..















I did as you suggested and toured the island. I suppose it is possible I missed the areas that you claim are the same as the ruins...

So considering you are making the claim... the proof of this is up to you...

I ask again SHOW ME those rocks on the island that match THIS area showing perfect 90 degree angles




Otherwise your theory doesn't hold water







[edit on 28-8-2009 by zorgon]



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 02:53 PM
link   
It's a natural formation IMO ... the structure has no symmetry or scale that represents a Temple or .. well.. anything. The "Stairs" for instance, are not stairs.... unless the person using them has a 20ft stride.

So, unless it's hollow and there are huge cathedral like rooms inside, I would say it's completely natural.



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 03:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rockpuck
It's a natural formation IMO ...


Can you describe or provide evidence on the natural forces that would create such precision angles an flat surface on that scale? Would be appreciated. Thanks




...the structure has no symmetry or scale that represents a Temple or .. well.. anything. The "Stairs" for instance, are not stairs.... unless the person using them has a 20ft stride.


Well to me , like the one in Peru that I showed earlier that also has no scale that represents a temple etc, (that has been conveniently ignore BTW ) they DO look like something that makes sense...





Where are the rocks? Dunno, but the Pyramids of Egypt, according to archaeologists, quarried their stone over 500 miles away



Peru...



Yonaguni...



Italian Marble Quarry



All look the same to me...




[edit on 28-8-2009 by zorgon]



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 04:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon

Can you describe or provide evidence on the natural forces that would create such precision angles an flat surface on that scale? Would be appreciates. Thanks



Zorgon,

You're thinking of it the wrong way. The stone in this formation was not eroded into these shapes, it broke into these shapes. (It's called cleavage - sounds more enticing now, doesn't it? LOL)

Schoch noted vertical cleavage in the stone that remains - throughout it, IIRC. As you know, there is natural horizontal cleavage in any sedimendary rock because of the way it is formed through, ahem, sedimentation. Sandstone - which is a form of limestone- is sedimentary.

When you have both horizontal and vertical cleavage, you get these kinds of shapes.

BTW, Schoch also noted that the flora carpeting the underwater formation gave it a much more "level" look. This adds greatly to the illusion of manufacture.

Check the pic at this Nat Geo webpage. It shows one of the areas I'm talking about.
Nat Geo Pic of the week some good while back

Look, obviously, the formation that is off the coast is not attached to the island by a chain of similar "cut-looking" stone. This means that the area between the island and the formation was not the same kind of deposit. Sedimentary stone varies greatly over just a few feet in many cases.

Similarly, on the island, there will be areas that are also not of the same deposit.
So, you can find examples of both sorts of geomorphology on the island.

This is not unusual. You can find different geomorphologies within the Sphinx enclosure at Giza and that is far smaller than either Yonaguni-Jima or the offshore formation.

Anyway, the current thought is that the formation weathered that way before it sank below the sea. It was not flooded by the ice age. Professor Kimura has determined that it sank due to vulcanism around the same time as the destruction of Pompeii

All this info has been posted many, many times before right here at ATS.

Harte



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 04:20 PM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 


Not saying it's not a man made structure, just saying to me it looks natural.

Sedimentary Rock may often break into 90 degree angles... your really testing my memory with my geo classes I took 2 years ago lol. Depending on what the rock is made of though, certain stresses can cause the rocks to break at right angles, usually extreme heat to cold or pressure could fracture rock like that. So if the rock formation is by a Volcano, it wouldn't be impossible. Sometimes Mother Nature just creates the most peculiar formations..

en.wikipedia.org...:Causeway-code_poet-4.jpg

The Giants Causeway in Ireland for example, is of basalt, a Volcanic rock that formed in a way that could be seen as man made, but is natural.



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 04:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Harte
You're thinking of it the wrong way. The stone in this formation was not eroded into these shapes, it broke into these shapes. (It's called cleavage - sounds more enticing now, doesn't it? LOL)


Limestone does NOT cleave into 90 degree angles like that... for a rock to cleave it requires crystaline structure that provide cleavage planes, like feldspar, which generally cleaves into rhombohedrons



Do not assume I am stupid... I know my rocks better that you can imagine...

Please show me examples of other natural stone blocks that have cleaved into such perfect angles as you have repeatedly claimed... and not the basalt columns but limestone or sandstone blocks similar to what the 'monument' is made of.

And I would suggest you look up the term cleavage so you better understand what it means. Fracture may work better for you because sandstones and limestone can split along layers od sediment but they have no crystaline structure to cleave or fracture at 90 degree angles



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 04:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Harte As you know, there is natural horizontal cleavage in any sedimendary rock because of the way it is formed through, ahem, sedimentation. Sandstone - which is a form of limestone- is sedimentary.


Horizontal yes from bedding layers... NOT VERTICAL AT 90 degree angles...

Sandstone is NOT a form of limestone Sandstone is compressed layers of sand generally created in dry areas

Limestone is cemented with calcium form billions of dead organisms...


Sandstone is a sedimentary rock composed mainly of sand-size mineral or rock grains. Most sandstone is composed of quartz and/or feldspar because these are the most common minerals in the Earth's crust. Like sand, sandstone may be any color, but the most common colors are tan, brown, yellow, red, gray and white. Since sandstone beds often form highly visible cliffs and other topographic features, certain colors of sandstone have been strongly identified with certain regions


en.wikipedia.org...

Sandstone also rarely forms beds that are FLAT as we see in the monument




Limestone is a sedimentary rock composed largely of the mineral calcite (calcium carbonate: CaCO3). The deposition of limestone strata is often a by-product and indicator of biological activity in the geologic record. Calcium (along with nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium) is a key mineral to plant nutrition: soils overlying limestone bedrock tend to be pre-fertilized with calcium. Limestone is an important stone for masonry and architecture, vying with only granite and sandstone to be the most commonly used architectural stone. Limestone is a key ingredient of quicklime, mortar, cement, and concrete. The solubility of limestone in water and weak acid solutions leads to important phenomena.


en.wikipedia.org...






[edit on 28-8-2009 by zorgon]



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 04:35 PM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 


And if I remember correctly rocks only cleave at 90 degree angles from one direction, horizontal or vertically correct?

Whew, I need to retake a Geo course lol



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 04:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rockpuck
Not saying it's not a man made structure, just saying to me it looks natural.


I am not saying its absolutely manmade... al I am asking is those that have the opinion that its natural to at least back up that claim with other examples... the fact that no one has indicates to me that they can't


Surely to have an opinion that it's natural, one has to understand HOW it can have been made naturally yes?



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 05:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon
al I am asking is those that have the opinion that its natural to at least back up that claim with other examples... the fact that no one has indicates to me that they can't


Surely to have an opinion that it's natural, one has to understand HOW it can have been made naturally yes?


I did back it up and you dismissed it without reason.

Let me ask you this, are you a geophysicist?

Schoch is. Here's what he found there:


The Yonaguni Monument is composed predominantly of medium to very fine sandstones and mudstones of the lower Miocene Yaeyama group (the rocks themselves were derposited about 20 million years ago.)

These rocks contain numerous well-defined parallel bedding planes along which the layers easily separate. The rocks of this group are also criss-crossed by numerous sets of parallel and vertical (relative to the horizontal bedding planes of the rocks) joints and fractures. Yonaguni lies in an earthquake-prone region; such earthquakes tend to fracture rocks in a regular manner.

SOURCE - Dr. Robert Schoch's findings posted at the Morien Instutute

Like I said, cleavage at right angles.

But you're right about limestone. Both are forms of sedimentary rock, however. "Dry areas" or not.



Please show me examples of other natural stone blocks that have cleaved into such perfect angles as you have repeatedly claimed... and not the basalt columns but limestone or sandstone blocks similar to what the 'monument' is made of.

I did precisely that. Did you decide not to look at the Nat Geo pic? I wonder why?

Harte

[edit on 8/28/2009 by Harte]



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 08:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Harte
I did back it up and you dismissed it without reason.


You mean this one? The one you can clearly see the THIN bedding layers?




Don't need a PhD to see the difference...



Let me ask you this, are you a geophysicist?
Schoch is. Here's what he found there:


Nope just geologist and gem cutter... learned that at 9 from a nice Croatian cutter in Toronto...



Like I said, cleavage at right angles.


So you did... yet your expert says FRACTURES twice



The only reason I am not 100% sure its made made is because I can't see it myself
And I bet your expert didn't dive either... and while sediment from the sea WOULD level out rough areas, that would not apply to the vertical surface

Your photo shows flat plates but the fracture are not at 90 degrees. And the bedding layers show various hard and soft layers that weather at different rates

To Rockpuck

No cleavage occurs along the crystal lattice

Calcite like feldspar will cleave into rhombohedrons... no right angles




Fluorite cleaves into tetrahedrons also no right angles



Hope that helps


As to PhD... doesn't that stand for Phony Doctor just like BS stands for...



[edit on 28-8-2009 by zorgon]



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join