Jōmon, Yayoi, Kofun civilizations and the Japanese Earthquakes

Originally posted by VonDoomen


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!

Straw man argument.

Where has anyone claimed that humans never set foot on this formation?

The claim was made that it has to be man-made. That claim is pure rubbish. It was that claim that we are trying to refute.

I can walk out in my backyard, pick up a stone, and say with certainty that "humans might have used this stone in the past!" That statement is congruent to what you're saying here.

Harte

reply to post by Harte


I dont think I claimed it HAD to be entirely man made. Someone else may have? Im pretty sure all ive claimed is neither one of you knows wether or not human influences helped shape this area. So I would say yours is the straw man arguement, Unless you hit the wrong reply too button?

Originally posted by VonDoomen

I dont think I claimed it HAD to be entirely man made. Someone else may have?

No, it was Mercurio.

Originally posted by VonDoomen Im pretty sure all ive claimed is neither one of you knows wether or not human influences helped shape this area. So I would say yours is the straw man arguement, Unless you hit the wrong reply too button?

No, my (and Byrd's) argument was that the site was not built by anyone. Neither of us claimed nobody had ever stood on it.

I replied to the right person. You were commenting on a claim that wasn't made.

Harte

Originally posted by VonDoomen
Im pretty sure all ive claimed is neither one of you knows wether or not human influences helped shape this area.

Well, I did link to the report of geologist Dr. Robert Schoch very early. He's a geologist who worked on the sphynx issue, on the Bosnian "pyramids" and other things. He went to the site, he dived the site, and he said that it was not manmade.

So I took the word of a scientist who has been there -- a scientist who knows a whole lot about geology and a thing or two about archaeology and who's published and defended controversial papers (and has retracted one when he came to the conclusion that his initial findings were wrong.) That's the perfect investigator to send to a site like that.

I also looked for pictures of the features he talked about and then I looked for other pictures of similar rock formations (so I accepted him as a good source and then doublechecked.)

You can choose to not believe him.

This is what Robert Schoch (your "skeptic") says

"We should also consider the possibility that the Yonaguni Monument is fundamentally a natural structure that was utilized, enhanced, and modified by humans in ancient times."

Doesn't really seem like he definitively believes this structure is natural. He says it is natural but that it was "utilized, enhanced and modified by humans in ancient times". LOL.

Seems like more of a compromise of the obvious. Which is that this was built by humans.

Originally posted by Mercurio
Doesn't really seem like he definitively believes this structure is natural. He says it is natural...

The above sentence shows your own personal bias.

Obviously, this geologist states that it is a natural formation, yet you add on that he "doesn't really seem" to believe it is natural.
Do you know who Robert Schoch is? If you do, then you know that if he thought it was at all possible that the site was man-made in any way, he would have said so.

Regardless of what you want him to say, he says the opposite of what you want.

Originally posted by Mercurio
...but that it was "utilized, enhanced and modified by humans in ancient times". LOL.

Seems like more of a compromise of the obvious. Which is that this was built by humans.

Do you know what "built by humans" actually means?

Harte

"Modified by humans"? what do you think that means?

It's like looking at Stonehenge and saying "This is a natural structure but it could have been possibly utilized, enhanced and modified by humans". Well duh, the rocks were quarried, moved and set in place. The rocks are "natural" in that they are rocks. But it is not a "natural rock formation".

reply to post by Mercurio


well if you look at the pictures... these rocks are part of a natural outcropping. as far as i can tell. The part that gets me is some of the angles and some of the "pathways"

IMO this is a natural outcropping that has been worked on by humans. who knows maybe it could be halfway done when catastrophe hit? no one knows? But I would deff put my money on this area being worked upon.

Originally posted by Mercurio
"Modified by humans"? what do you think that means?

It's like looking at Stonehenge and saying "This is a natural structure but it could have been possibly utilized, enhanced and modified by humans". Well duh, the rocks were quarried, moved and set in place. The rocks are "natural" in that they are rocks. But it is not a "natural rock formation".

The Yonaguni formation does not consist of loose stones.

No stones are stacked, there are no openings, there are no design features.

Stonehenge, on the other hand, consists of loose stones, the stones are standing in a circle (both of which could not happen without design,) stones are stacked on top of standing stones, and the stones are aligned with significant seasonal events.

Hardly the same thing.

Originally posted by VonDoomen
well if you look at the pictures... these rocks are part of a natural outcropping. as far as i can tell. The part that gets me is some of the angles and some of the "pathways"

I agree that it looks weird, but right-angles are commonly created in sedimentary stone, as well as in stones with crystalline structure. In sedimentary stone, horizontal planes are part of the makeup of the stone because of the way it is formed. Vertical fissures happen in these stones when earthquakes strike. The combination causes the angles you see.

You could be right that the site has been "worked." But the right angles in the stones aren't the result of that. Such stone could have been taken advantage of by locals, however.

If you look at exposed bedrock on the nearby island (Yonaguni Jima,) you'll find the same sorts of shapes. That is the kicker.

Harte

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.)

This doesn't have anything shaped for humans either. But, it's definitely manmade.

Just because something may not look like it has a use doesn't mean it can be ignored as manmade.

Originally posted by Hivethink


This doesn't have anything shaped for humans either. But, it's definitely manmade.

Just because something may not look like it has a use doesn't mean it can be ignored as manmade.

So, there are doors in the Peoria civic center that humans can't fit through?

What, do you fall in if you sit on the toilets there?

Telephone handsets too big to lift?

Do you have to climb up on the keyboards and jump on keys in otrder to visit ATS from there?

Harte

I was talking more specifically about the "art" outside of the Peoria Civic Center. Not the Civic Center itself.