posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 04:47 PM
The lost city of Mu'a/Mu/Mua/Yonaguni Monument
On hearing about the find, Kimura said, his initial impression was that the formations could be natural. But he changed his mind after his first dive.
"I think it's very difficult to explain away their origin as being purely natural, because of the vast amount of evidence of man's influence on the
structures," he said. For example, Kimura said, he has identified quarry marks in the stone, rudimentary characters etched onto carved faces, and
rocks sculpted into the likenesses of animals. "The characters and animal monuments in the water, which I have been able to partially recover in my
laboratory, suggest the culture comes from the Asian continent," he said. "One example I have described as an underwater sphinx resembles a Chinese
or ancient Okinawan king."
The structures include the ruins of a castle, a triumphal arch, five temples, and at least one large stadium, all of which are connected by roads and
water channels and are partly shielded by what could be huge retaining walls.
"Pottery and wood do not last on the bottom of the ocean, but we are interested in further research on a relief at the site that is apparently painted
and resembles a cow," Kimura said.
"We want to determine the makeup of the paint. I would also like to carry out subsurface research."
After some time away from the mainstream internet debunkers, the lost city of Mu'a is starting to gain some acceptance in the mainstream archeological
world. The newest and popular theory is that early humans may have lived there and adapted the natural rock to their needs.
Efforts to date the monument are derived from the last time the area was above sea level, which would have been approximately 8,000-10,000 years
ago– about 3-5 millennia before Egypt’s pyramids were erected. If the monuments were indeed built by humankind, it would require some dramatic
revisions to the accepted chronological history of humanity.
Perhaps the most reasonable theory, however, is one which suggests that the mounds of stone are natural features that were carved and shaped into
terraces by early man.
This theory adequately explains the lack of entrance into the monuments, and the apparent post holes and etchings made in the rock.
Because of the submerged location and the strong currents in the area, the Yonaguni Monuments have proved difficult to properly study; though the area
has become a popular site for SCUBA tours. Researchers have not yet found conclusive evidence implicating either erosion or humanity as the source of
these shapes, so the investigation and debate regarding the nature of the Yonaguni Monuments continues.
The surrounding architecture seems to support that idea. That is a tomb carved from solid rock that is a known structure not far from the ruins.
Kimura believes the ruins date back to at least 5,000 years, based on the dates of stalactites found inside underwater caves that he says sank with
Experts place the structure at somewhere between 10,000 and 5,000 year old. As usual they can't agree on anything. One thing is certain, the
folklore of the region places it as very old. This popped out at me for a few reasons. First of all, the "stacked" look of the formations is similar
to that of the Sphinx. The date debate is hot for both Mu'a and the Sphinx.
The face photographed at Mu'a has even been compared to the Sphinx. The photo has been highly criticized, but it's still largely opinion based.
The face resembles an alien grey more so than an Asian person.
Some have said it’s a woman, some claim it’s a man. I think it resembles an alien grey.
The Sphinx is not built with quarried blocks like the pyramids and temples it guards, but carved out of the living bedrock. Its makers gave it a man's
head (some say it's a woman) and the body of a lion. It is 66 feet high and an impressive 240 feet long. It has the most extraordinary expression,
like a hundred Mona Lisas all rolled into one. And it eyes gaze forever at the distant horizon due east, at the equinox point...at something not of
this world but beyond it, in the sky. Something, perhaps, that is reflected or 'frozen' in the essence and age of the Sphinx.
The Sphinx not only appears to be the same age (maybe), but it was constructed in the same way as Mu'a. It clearly shares the "stepped" or "stacked"
But the most interesting mysteries of the Sphinx (or at least those producing the most provocative theories) have to do with how it came to be
weathered. The most obvious answer is that it was by millennia of desert winds.
But when geologist Robert Schoch and Egyptologist John Anthony West examined it in 1990, Schloch concluded it had been weathered by rainfall, not by
wind and sand. If that's true, its date of construction might be closer to 7000 BC.
Similarly, when the maverick Egyptologist R. A. Schwaller de Lubicz visited Giza in the 1930s, he immediately declared that the Sphinx had been
weathered by water, not by wind. But instead of suggesting rainfall, Schwaller proposed that the Sphinx had been worn by seawater and that its origins
lay in the ocean.
Notice the water damage to the side of the face. This is important because the area did have wet weather often, 7,000+ years ago.
The original purpose of the Sphinx is unknown. It may have been built to symbolically guard over the Giza plateau, and it may have been a portrait of
Pharaoh Khafre. It's face seems to bear a resemblance to Khafre's, and the royal headdress that it wears is particular to pharaohs
Just like Mu'a, the purpose of the Sphinx is still unknown. It has no inner workings, it's a simple solid structure. Some believe it was built to
watch over Giza. They assume it was built by humans. Was it?
edit on 3-8-2012 by AnarchysAngel because: (no reason given)