Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Jōmon, Yayoi, Kofun civilizations and the Japanese Earthquakes

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 7 2011 @ 02:23 PM
link   
Hello. I've nothing groundbreaking or some lengthy treatise on anything pertaining to any lost or ancient civilizations. Rather, I come here as a concerned individual.

Has anyone heard if any of the ancient monolithic walls and/or ruins of these ancient civilizations found on the ocean floor around Japan survived the earthquakes?




posted on Apr, 7 2011 @ 02:28 PM
link   
I wondered about this too, especially the ones that are underwater, like is thought of the Yonaguni monuments.

And, at the same time as I see those underwater areas, I begin to understand how the same things that have been going on this month could have been the cause of those particular places to be underwater now.

It's a scary thought.



posted on Apr, 7 2011 @ 11:32 PM
link   
The Yonaguni ruins site is far away from the earthquake, it is safe....for now...
edit on 7-4-2011 by Mercurio because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 8 2011 @ 07:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hivethink
Hello. I've nothing groundbreaking or some lengthy treatise on anything pertaining to any lost or ancient civilizations. Rather, I come here as a concerned individual.

Has anyone heard if any of the ancient monolithic walls and/or ruins of these ancient civilizations found on the ocean floor around Japan survived the earthquakes?

What ancient monolithic walls and/or ruins of these ancient civilizations?

Got a link?

Harte



posted on Apr, 14 2011 @ 10:41 AM
link   



posted on Apr, 14 2011 @ 11:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hivethink
Here are just a few pictures

The formation at Yonaguni Jima is completely natural.

You should use the search function here and see that this is certainly not any ruin of any ancient civilization, nor is it a construction of any kind.

Harte



posted on Apr, 16 2011 @ 08:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Harte

Originally posted by Hivethink
Here are just a few pictures

The formation at Yonaguni Jima is completely natural.

You should use the search function here and see that this is certainly not any ruin of any ancient civilization, nor is it a construction of any kind.

Harte


Yes, because you are such an authority.
It is obviously an artificial structure.

Telling people to use the search function doesn't make your argument any better.



posted on Apr, 17 2011 @ 10:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hivethink
Hello. I've nothing groundbreaking or some lengthy treatise on anything pertaining to any lost or ancient civilizations. Rather, I come here as a concerned individual.

Has anyone heard if any of the ancient monolithic walls and/or ruins of these ancient civilizations found on the ocean floor around Japan survived the earthquakes?


There's been a lot of damage to Japan, and getting and verifying the reports has been time-consuming. To the best of my knowledge, the situation looks like this:

Wikipedia has a useful damage map for Japan

A lsit of historic sites damaged by the earthquake

As far as I can tell, very few scientists believe that these are manmade -- and (more tellingly, in my opinion) is that Kimura can't convince his fellow geologists who have gone on dives to investigate the site in person that this is manmade. Nor has he convinced any archaeologists (there are no artifacts associated with the site, and the "carvings" aren't very convincing, there aren't any entrances or windows or openings and they're made of gigantic blocks of rock -- something not done by any culture that lived in the earthquake prone area (gigantic blocks of rock shift and fall onto things and crush them.))

In any case, the stone blocks weren't affected, although many cultural treasure sites and historic sites were damaged.


References

Overview of Japanese castles (largest historic structures) and how they were made (mostly wood with some stone)
en.wikipedia.org...

Wikipedia's timeline of the history of Japan (one of the first places to produce pottery, in fact) is easy to read and gives you a sense of when they began to work which materials:
en.wikipedia.org...

National Geographic's review of geologist Kimura's statements that this is a city:
news.nationalgeographic.com...

Geologist Dr. Robert Schoch (who argued that the Sphynx was older than 4th dynasty Egypt based on weathering) dived the site and reported that it's a geologic formation and not manmade



posted on Apr, 17 2011 @ 05:43 PM
link   
If the Great Pyramid of Giza was underwater, archaeologists would insist it was a natural rock formation.

I don't understand why it being underwater means it is a crazy idea that it is artificial. Sea levels were not always as high as they are now.



^ Yeah, that is a rock formation.



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 07:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mercurio

Originally posted by Harte

Originally posted by Hivethink
Here are just a few pictures

The formation at Yonaguni Jima is completely natural.

You should use the search function here and see that this is certainly not any ruin of any ancient civilization, nor is it a construction of any kind.

Harte

Yes, because you are such an authority.
It is obviously an artificial structure.

Telling people to use the search function doesn't make your argument any better.

And your argument from incredulity isn't an argument at all.

The search function will lead you to the information you require to make a reasonable conclusion about this natural formation.

However, it is obvious that you don't care to know.

Harte



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 07:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mercurio

I don't understand why it being underwater means it is a crazy idea that it is artificial.



I don't understand why being underwater makes it any different to similar rock outcrops on land?


There is no evidence of any human activity on the outcrop - though that does not mean that when it was still above sea levels a few thousand year ago it may have been in some ways altered by the local population, either deliberately or just as a by-product of quarrying. As humans are wont to do.



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 09:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Harte
 


because being underwater for 12,000 years would leave TONS of human debris just safely floating on top of these structures for archaeologist to study.

humans always built near water. meaning once the sea levels rose, a lot of habitats will become submerged.

neither one of you know if its manmade or not. so enough with the internet tough guy arguments ha.



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 01:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by VonDoomen
reply to post by Harte
 


because being underwater for 12,000 years would leave TONS of human debris just safely floating on top of these structures for archaeologist to study.

The formation has been submerged for only about 2,000 years.


Originally posted by VonDoomenhumans always built near water. meaning once the sea levels rose, a lot of habitats will become submerged.

The formation was submerged by tectonic action (it sank.) It was not overcome by rising sea levels.


Originally posted by VonDoomenneither one of you know if its manmade or not. so enough with the internet tough guy arguments ha.

It is obviously not manmade. The steps on it have 3 to 6 foot risers. Some even higher than that.

It may be that you don't know if it's manmade or not. That does not reflect on anyone else's knowledge of the site, however.

Harte



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 03:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mercurio
If the Great Pyramid of Giza was underwater, archaeologists would insist it was a natural rock formation.


No and in fact underwater archaeology is a very active field, with many discoveries showing that humans were in the Americas well before the Clovis poiont was developed coming from this area of the science. In Egypt, too, archaeological dives have unconvered a lot of material from the time of Cleopatra.


I don't understand why it being underwater means it is a crazy idea that it is artificial. Sea levels were not always as high as they are now.


It's not that it's underwater. It's that there is no sign humans ever modified it or even used it. And yes, they've looked -- the initial find generated a lot of excitement and the hope that it would be a site similar to those off the Carolinas and off the coast of India.



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by VonDoomenneither one of you know if its manmade or not. so enough with the internet tough guy arguments ha.


Actually, I do. I've taught geology and I've been on archaeological digs. I've looked at the photos as well.

The blocks of stone aren't put in place; they're growing out of the earth (faulted basalts)... and there is nothing shaped for humans in there ("steps" that are 3 feet tall... couldn't use those nor would you get any use out of a set of buildings with no doors and no windows and no entrances and no interiors.)



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 04:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Byrd

Originally posted by VonDoomenneither one of you know if its manmade or not. so enough with the internet tough guy arguments ha.


Actually, I do. I've taught geology and I've been on archaeological digs. I've looked at the photos as well.

The blocks of stone aren't put in place; they're growing out of the earth (faulted basalts)... and there is nothing shaped for humans in there ("steps" that are 3 feet tall... couldn't use those nor would you get any use out of a set of buildings with no doors and no windows and no entrances and no interiors.)


It is not a building. It is a monument. Like the pyramids are. Therefore, complaining about the lack of windows is nonsensical. And how do you know there is no interior? Has anyone been inside it?

And most of the steps are not so big that humans wouldn't be able to climb them. If you look at pictures of divers next to the monument. They are not normal staircase steps, but they are not insurmountable either.
edit on 18-4-2011 by Mercurio because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 04:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Harte
 


reply to post by Byrd
 


Thanks for the info. I was unsure how long they were submerged.

But regardless... neither one of you know whether or not humans were at this site.

If its only been submerged for 2000 years, then it gives more credence to the idea that humans could of been there.

Also how do you guys know humans NEVER worked this site? Can I see your proofs?
No, you guys have none
See, you cant say without a shadow of a doubt that humans were never there and never worked this site. Your confidence in your OPINION is rather astounding!

and why would humans 100% of the time have to quarry rocks and put them together like with the pyramids? Are you telling me humans could never have shaped these natural rock outcroppings? And yes, 3 foot stairs would be a little ridiculous, which is why you add it to your arguement. But you exclude the possibility that it could of been ANYTHING else besides stairs?
edit on 4/18/2011 by VonDoomen because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 04:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mercurio
It is not a building. It is a monument. Like the pyramids are. Therefore, complaining about the lack of windows is nonsensical. And how do you know there is no interior? Has anyone been inside it?


No, because there aren't any doors at all. Nowhere. Look at the pictures for yourself -- there's many of them.


And most of the steps are not so big that humans wouldn't be able to climb them. If you look at pictures of divers next to the monument. They are not normal staircase steps, but they are not insurmountable either.
edit on 18-4-2011 by Mercurio because: (no reason given)


Humans build things to use them -- very seldom do they build something and then walk away from it. If you look at pictures of the site, you will see that there's no "floor" for the "pyramid"... in other words, it wasn't built by finding a flat surface (or flattening something) and then hauling in immense stone blocks (not flat slabs like Baalbek, built by the Roman engineers. Tall chunky blocks.)

When they show a "pyramid" or "temple" you are shown just selected portions of the structure. Not the whole thing.



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 05:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Byrd
 


So your saying humans never build anything for an artistic merit?

and we've all heard stories about places being abandoned?

reply to post by Harte
 


So being submerged for submerged for 2000(not 12000 years) would cause a loss of evidence? especially in a region as prone to earthquakes and tsunamis as this area?



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 10:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by VonDoomen
reply to post by Byrd
 


So your saying humans never build anything for an artistic merit?

and we've all heard stories about places being abandoned?


No, not saying either one of those -- in fact, Gobeli Tepke was built and apparently buried. HOWEVER, you can clearly see traces that it was built by humans... blocks are stacked on blocks (not an immense mountain carved away haphazaardly) and there's shape and structure. Even massive monuments that are essentially carved mountains have traces of tool marks and other features that aren't present at this pile of basalt.





new topics




 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join