Underwater Ruins at Yonaguni

I thought this was the most interesting case that I have ran across in a long time. A swimmer named Anataki in Yonaguni Japan, a certified scuba diver was in search of more attractions for tourists when he ran across this huge massive underwater collosus that begin to look more and more like an ancient civilization that just droped into the sea.

Truthfully my frist thought was maybe this might be linked in some way to the civilization of Atlantis.

A researcher investigating underwater rock formations off the coast of Japan believes they are the remnants of an Asian equivalent of Atlantis — an ancient civilisation swallowed up by the ocean.

Marine geologist Masaaki Kimura says he has identified the ruins of a city off the coast of Yonaguni Island on the southwestern tip of Japan.

He has worked for decades to prove the rocks found by scuba diving tourists in 1985 are from an ancient city, which he says may have sparked the fable of Mu — a Pacific equivalent of the tale of the lost city of Atlantis.
Judging by the design and the disposition of the ruins, the city must have looked just like an ancient Roman city," said Kimura, a professor at Ryukyu University and the chairman of the non-profit Marine Science and Culture Heritage Research Association. "I can envisage a triumphal arch-like statue stood on the left side of the Colosseum and a shrine over the hill," he said.

Some of the initial divers noticed that the rocks were unnaturally smooth and formed a sort of staircase near the island’s shores. Subsequent dives by Kimura revealed irregular rock outcrops over 1 square km and mounds of rubble.

Kimura says he believes the city had a castle, a shrine, an arch, statues and a colosseum.

"In my estimation, the castle was situated right in the middle of the city. And though not as big as the castle, a lot of ruins of shrine-like structures too have been discovered," he said at his research room. Kimura believes the city was sunk in an earthquake 3,000 years ago. Gram Hancock also endorsed this find and took a crash course to view this structure.

Hancock said "I was in complete awe to see clear right angles clean and cut, and so monsterious in such a pre civilization time". Since 1997 he has made over 150 dives and discovered more than just the one structure, that was spread out over 5 kilomiters of the coast and since they were all submerged they were all made at or around the same time.

This however raises a hard question for the scientific to swallow or answer and that is the fact that these ruins date back to 8000 BC, pre-dating the pyramids by 10,000 Years

1. 8000 BC we were nomadic clans, so how could we create this monument ? ?

2. civilization began in egypt around 3000 BC so where and who was this ancient cizilization ??

I think that this is an outstanding find and in my honest opinion if they can figure out exactly who and how this fabled city was created it could enevetibly help to sole the mysterys of a forgotten age

the lost city of atlantis............

You might like to read the book "Underwater Civilizations" by Graham Hancock. He went scuba down there and took some of his own photos. It's a massive, thick book, not light reading. But a good book nonetheless.

Lots of other researchers have mentioned it. Jordan Maxwell was one. I forget how many others...

Many new places will be re-discovered in the next few years.

Originally posted by djtrpz

1. 8000 BC we were nomadic clans, so how could we create this monument ? ?

2. civilization began in egypt around 3000 BC so where and who was this ancient cizilization ??

I think that this is an outstanding find and in my honest opinion if they can figure out exactly who and how this fabled city was created it could enevetibly help to sole the mysterys of a forgotten age

the lost city of atlantis............

It's not a "city," it's unquestionably a natural formation that very closely resembles the natural formation of the island of Yonaguni Jima itself.

That shouldn't be too surprising. After all, they are of the same geologic formation so they should have similar geomorphologies.

Kimura can "believe" what he wants. He hasn't got even a single shred of evidence that humans ever set foot on the underwater formation, much less any evidence that would indicate any date for humans to have utilized the formation for anything.

Harte

The key to understanding it is to go above the water line as Harte notes and look at the similar formations in the rock. I still hold that it possible for the site to have been modified slightly by humans but overall it's just natural.

Kimura is a good example of how people (even scientists) can fall in love with their idea and get obsessed with it.



[edit on 5/8/08 by Hanslune]

Let me add a note. What is the terrain like to the left and right of the ridge line? Is there a reason you never see photos of that area?

There is? Now guess what the reason might be!

This might not be a city, but if it was a city it could explain lots of things that couldnt be explained before. also it would mean humans are alot older than we used to think many theorys would be crushed and many theorys would flourish

Originally posted by Harte
It's not a "city," it's unquestionably a natural formation

Wait, are you talking about this Yonaguni?:




The above is "unquestionably" natural? Why?


This is what water erosion does to sharp-edged rocks:






In general have you never heard that water rounds rocks as it erodes them?


This is what crude stone steps look like:





This is what more professional work looks like:




Notice the above still isn't completely smooth.


It honestly made me laugh that someone thinks these have actually been proven to be natural. I'd like to know the physics of the mechanism. I know it theoretically happens over time, but this just defies thermodynamics outright. Water does not move that way, neither does dirt, unless the rock was supposed to already be in that shape when it was formed.

[edit on 11-8-2008 by bsbray11]

[edit on 11-8-2008 by wiseintheoccult]

reply to post by bsbray11


I believe if you check you'll find few if any geologists other than Kimura think its anything thing but natural. I personally thinks it natural with some possible modification by man. The key is to look at similar formations above and below the water on the Island of Okinawa.

It also helps to have a pretty good idea of the type of stone the formation is made of.
It's true, softer stones get softened relatively quickly, the harder stones take progressivly longer. This stone breaks along a cleavage line, and if you were to take these photos and compare them to the land itself, you'd see pretty striking similarities.
This is like the story of the Pyramid the fellow claimed to have discovered in Europe. Dug up a perfectly natural hill and ruined or destroyed a large amount of recognized ruins in the area, to find a perfectly normal hill.
At least there's nothing around for the fellow to ruin, though I don't think he's as crazy.

Originally posted by Hanslune
The key is to look at similar formations above and below the water on the Island of Okinawa.

Maybe you can post images of what you're talking about.

I also don't care what "most" people think, not only because it's an appeal to authority rather than logic, and tends to be more inaccurate and status-quo than objective, but because people also tend to pay more attention to experts that agree with them than disagree no matter what the issue is. Where opinions are concerned there is something for everyone.

No entropic thermodynamic process is going to result in sharp 90 degree angles that arise between perfectly flat surfaces on three different axes with a common terminating point, and even plumb, but that is exactly what you can see in the picture above. Those are man-made, beyond any reasonable doubt in my mind. If you think I am missing something, then reason with me. I appeal directly to Sophia, not to the whore.

Howdy Bsbray11

I also don't care what "most" people think,

Hans: Really? Then why are you posting and reading here- its mainly full of what most people think about. I find it odd that you discount the opinions of geologists on this subject.

not only because it's an appeal to authority rather than logic,

Hans: Its notfication of expert opinion - are you a qualified geologists? I'm not, therefore I respect the consensus opinion of those who are. I've already stated my unqualified opinion. Why do you think that no geologists have written papers expounding on their artificality?

and tends to be more inaccurate and status-quo than objective, but because people also tend to pay more attention to experts that agree with them than disagree no matter what the issue is.

Hans: True but not when the facts contradict the observations of a non expert

Where opinions are concerned there is something for everyone.

Hans: See above, basing one opinion on a lack of knowledge doesn't really give any extra validity to your opinion does it?

No entropic thermodynamic process

Hans: Perhaps you can define that as it applies to geology?

is going to result in sharp 90 degree angles that arise between perfectly flat surfaces on three different axes with a common terminating point, and even plumb, but that is exactly what you can see in the picture above.

Hans: So this is your definite non expert non-qualified opinion then, so what do we do now?

Those are man-made, beyond any reasonable doubt in my mind.

Hans: That's nice but is that opinion of any value in a scientific discussion? Is your opinion that of a geologist or someone who doesn't actually understand the processes involved?

If you think I am missing something, then reason with me.

Hans: I did but it didn't seem to work. I'm not a geologists and the first thing one learns is to avoid expounding on subjects I'm not expert at. It doesn't explain the subject and I generally find it a waste of time. Why as a non-geologist would you wish to conduct such a discussion?

I appeal directly to Sophia, not to the whore.

Hans: Is Sophia a geologist? LOL

Originally posted by Hanslune
Hans: Really? Then why are you posting and reading here

Because I can.

I find it odd that you discount the opinions of geologists on this subject.

How's that any different than yourself? This is what I'm talking about: you talk like everybody already agrees with you. This is why I HATE talking to people like you. You "debunkers" are all always the same. You really are all like sheep. Do you know how sheep behave? What is "right" to them is simply what they think all the other sheep are doing, and they literally know nothing else. They are an extremely social animal, to put it mildly. That's why they will all hop right over a cliff if they are led in a big group (yes, they will actually do that!). That's also why millions of Germans followed Hitler, and many now follow our current US administration, and millions follows Mussolini, etc., even though the men are all obvious scum and are doing scummy things all over the world. Everybody else is accepting and ok with it, so why not me too? They must not be such bad people after all. And how could there be a cliff ahead if everybody else keeps heading that way?

Individuals that appeal directly to the facts of the matter are smart; masses of people who follow each other blindly are historically borderline retarded. You can tell the difference because facts are never people. If you find yourself getting the two confused, then consider that you may be behaving ignorantly, and you probably are. Do you understand the gist of what I'm telling you? If you don't then just know that I don't care what most people think, alright? Try to post the "facts" you keep mentioning but have yet to show.

PS -- an entire generation of "experts" died believing Copernicus was an idiot for thinking the Earth revolved around the Sun. They had their "reasons," but they were also all stupid. It took generations for people to accept the truth over the established doctrine of the day. I would gladly disagree with any "experts" of this day if their "reasoning" is as bad as yours has been so far.

Hans: Its notfication of expert opinion - are you a qualified geologists?

I will not respond to any more "reasoning" like this. Technically this is a logical fallacy after all, in any argument, but I don't expect you to even know what that means.

If someone can show photos of similar features above ground, etc., I will respond.

[edit on 12-8-2008 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by bsbray11

If someone can show photos of similar features above ground, etc., I will respond.

[edit on 12-8-2008 by bsbray11]

Here's one of the one's Schoch used to illustrate why he believes the formation is natural.



From Here
Edited to add:

Here's one from National Geographic:



Here's the source article on that one.

Harte


[edit on 8/12/2008 by Harte]

Originally posted by Harte
Here's one of the one's Schoch used to illustrate why he believes the formation is natural.

Alright, I can buy that for this:




And this:




And very possibly even this:





But none of those features, taken individually or together, amount to this:




Just looking at the sharp angles in the above photo disproves that water erosion did this, so the alternate theory offered is that the rocks broke off along planes where less energy was holding them together molecularly, but even the photo Schoch used to illustrate that is much rougher on all surfaces that the features in the photo above, and his rock doesn't appear nearly as level and plumb as the features above. Have you not noticed this?

I'm not convinced that the less impressive natural formations he's shown explain the formations of greater complexity, smoothness and coinciding geometrical features (ie 3 flat planes meeting at a single point, all at 90 degree angles, etc.) that have gathered more attention. The work is too uncannily precise for nature to have carved out by pure accident, not only in precise measurements but in the actual usefulness it would serve to people should it have ever been above water (and is that really so hard to believe?).

Originally posted by bsbray11
Just looking at the sharp angles in the above photo disproves that water erosion did this, so the alternate theory offered is that the rocks broke off along planes where less energy was holding them together molecularly, but even the photo Schoch used to illustrate that is much rougher on all surfaces that the features in the photo above, and his rock doesn't appear nearly as level and plumb as the features above. Have you not noticed this?

Nobody has claimed that water erosion did any of this.

Schoch addressed your "smoothness" concerns very succinctly in his report. You'll find it at the Morien Institute website.

The stones appear smooth because of the carpet of marine growth that is attached to their surfaces. Schoch scraped past this and found no evidence of any tool marks. What he found was a surface similar to what is shown in the pics I provided.

Harte

reply to post by bsbray11


The problem with the picture on the bottom of Yonaguni is those steps are very irregular. The small areas one's foot would not fit followed by more "normal" steps. I am quite sure the king or chief would of had a tradesman do the steps so people would not fall off and break their legs or ankles.
I will agree at the first glance it does look man made, but when you do compare it to other steps the irregularities stand out.