posted on Mar, 28 2011 @ 08:54 AM
reply to post by OrionHunterX
Well the mainstream scientists just say it is a natural formation and that is that. But there is no way in hell that thing near Japan is natural.
Yeah, they are hiding info. Which is why I bring up the conflicting dates. They are trying to claim it is a natural formation, yet even the discussion
about it says it would be around 10,000 years.
From what I know of the accepted geologic record in that area that is impossible. Because at 14,000 years ago (conservative estimate) it should have
been going under the water. So it would had to have been built prior to that. And it could have been built thousands of years before that. And even
possibly the site could have even been submerged thousands of years before that.
So to me it is a clear clue that they are manipulating even the info they are giving out. Yes it might be real, "10,000 years old", when it obviously
is real and is far older than that - unless mainstream science if full of it.
If it is that age then it would mean that the dates geology gives for the ice caps melting and the great flooding from that are wrong. Either way,
they are hiding info.
edit on 28-3-2011 by Red Cloak because: (no reason given)