The other evening a friend of mine showed me a tape from the discovery channel about mysterious underwater city off the coast of Japan. Supposedly this city had to of been around at least 10k years ago, during the last ice age or it would of been underwater as it is today. This would, of course, be completely contrary to the standard thinking of the rise of civilization.
It looked like natural formations to me, and I found the explainations about them being naturally formed (sort of like the Bimini Road formation) seemed very plausable. Anyone know if this is being taken seriously? I must of missed the original show and have frankly heard nothing about this.
p.s. I’m very new to this board. Hope this question isn’t TOO stupid.
Welcome. No, it’s not a stupid question. I’ve got to e back at the office in about 10 minutes, so I don’t have time to look anything up, but I will say that I’ve not seen a shred of evidence to indicate that of which you post is anything other than naturally occurring.
I’m guessing that people seem to forget that nature makes stuff like Giant’s Causeway in Northern Ireland, and Devil’s Postpile in California. These are regular geometric shapes.
Being the wanabe archaeologist I’m gonna call BS on it being man made, and if it is I don’t think it’s 10000 years old. On UncleBill’s site they say that there is no eveidence of erosion, but if it’s been underwater for thousands of years then there has to be some, especially if it was manmade.
Thanks for the welcome and thanks Unclebill for the link to additional information. It was very interesting reading. I love the artists rendition at the top of the web site too…if it really looked like that there would be no doubt. However, from what I saw on the show, there was nothing so obviously human made (it was, however only a one hour special).
They showed a lot of straight line blocks, but when they scraped off the growth, nothing was as regular. There were ‘faces’ and mysterious holes and such too, but nothing that looked like it was conclusive to me at least. Also, at least from what I could see, the blocks looked pretty monolithic…I don’t see how something like that could be built with technology at the time they are talking about…hell, it would be hard NOW to move some of those blocks they showed…they were massive, much larger than even Stonehenge class stone work from what I could see. Carved maybe, but not build. And then there is the time frame…10-12k years ago. As far as I know, there is no other evidence of anything like this being built any where close to that time frame.
Why do you suppose that some scientists in other countries like Japan are taking this so seriously (at least thats the impression from Unclebills link) than in the US? Are there different standards of scientific rigor in those countries, or are the scientists quoted not representitive of scientific thought in their community/country? Or is it a big conspiricy?
The Yonaguni “pyramids” are a particular favourite of Graham Hancock (Fingerprints of the Gods, etc.) and are heavily featured in his most recent book, Underworld. What’s slightly awkward for him (as, to his credit, he acknowledges) is the position of Robert Schoch, the geologist who’s controversial, much disputed, dating of the Sphinx to prehistoric times was so central to his earlier books. Invited by Hancock to dive at Yonaguni and give his professional opinion on them, Schoch did so and came away largely unconvinced about them being man-made. He thinks they’re largely natural, with perhaps minor alteration, if that. This page, which supports them being artificial, includes an article by Schoch outlining his dissenting opinion.