Thonis-Heracleion - Ancient Egyptian port-city being revealed by underwater archaeology (pix)

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

Most of what you wrote above I also wrote it in this thread. But something you don't seem to know is the fact that the Yonaguni monument is not the only ruin down there. The Yonaguni monument is the center piece, but it is not the only one in that area. Not to mention that the angles, steps etc in the Yonaguni monument were obviously carved.

That is the claim the problem is nature does make such structure even Schoch most beloved of fringe believers thought it was natural

The only way to get to the monument is through a tunnel, and because of that tunnel there is no way the sea could have carved it, not to mention the way the angles, and steps were made can't be found naturally.

Oh you cannot walk up to (assuming it was dry) the problem with your ideas is that your mistaking a ridgeline for a 'temple' .

You tell me how nature made stairs like these.

Tell me their dimensions - do you know?

Yes they have some deterioration, but it should be normal for a monument that has been underwater for at least 10,000 or more years.

They haven't been underwater for 10k again you are quoting the earliest estimates, the scientific evidence shows they were submerged about 3-2,000 years ago (people don't agree on that), you might want actually read Professor Kimura research on the matter - he has devoted his life to the study of the place.

Kimura first estimated that this must be at least 10,000 years old (8,000 BCE), dating it to a time when it would have been above water.In a report given to the 21st Pacific Science Congress in 2007, he revised this estimate and dated it to 2,000 to 3,000 years ago as the sea level then was close to current levels.

From the wiki

Angles like these and steps so close together in width, yet very high.

Show us a path to get to the top - where is the top any way? Why is the construction so bizarre?

There is no way that whichever civilization carved this monument did it underwater, this monument was above water before it was carved, and still when it was above water the only way in was through a man-made tunnel. Here is a drawing which shows where the tunnel is, in the upper left part of the drawing, and shows more or less the features of the monument.

So you think that's an entrance huh, at four feet high and how long is the 'tunnel' it?

Here is some things for you to ponder

1. Why is the ridge line always shown from the east side? Have you ever seen an image of it from the west? Why do you think that is?

2. The ridge is a ridge most newer images 'cut off' the ridge - because it being part of ridge looks less mysterious and manufactured.

Here is an older image which, shows - not very well - the ridge line that continues up to dry land - why do you think most newer images cut that off and try to make people think its a stand alone object? huuummm? Do you think that is deceptive?



3. Why do you never see accurate detailed maps of the ridge line - just the same isolated part over and over.

4. What is this?



If you come out of the water you find this and similar places on the island itself...

Originally posted by Hanslune

Yes I'm well aware of the political situation in Cuba and they have a fairly active archaeological community, so have no idea what your point is. If the ebil Cubans were blocking real research the archaeological community would be up in arms about it ... guess what - they aren't - why do you think that is?

Wow, maybe because DICTATORS don't give a crap what the "archeological community" have to say about their decisions?...

Originally posted by Hanslune
No you keep showing us over interpreted, bias 'images' that are not real. Why do you think this is 'real"?

That's your claim, which is no proof... How about showing proof the images are fake?...

Again, CLAIMING is no proof...

reply to post by Hanslune

That is the claim the problem is nature does make such structure even Schoch most beloved of fringe believers thought it was natural

What...you mean like Schoch initially stated that in his opinion the apparent weathering of the Egyptian Sphinx enclosure was caused by sand erosion, and later, after more thorough investigations of said enclosure, changed his stance completely and now states that the weathering on the enclosure is proof of extreme water based erosion over periods as long as 10,000 years....that Schoch is it?

As has been said, Archaeology is an evolving science, who's theories and hypotheses are only ever as current as the latest finds from the latest digs...the professionals, by the very nature of the science, very often change their positions on certain artificats and sites.

Personally, the sum of $500,000 for dropping even a large quantity of sonar buoys around the Cuban site is way overestimated for such an exercise. Google have done similar work all over the world, as has most major oil companies, as have treasure hunters searching for sunken shipping or WW2 relics, as have Universities and even, sometimes (believe it or not) archaeology departments of various countries

None of whom thought their activities prohibitively expensive in pursuit of knowledge and data.

The average cost per sonar buoy is from $250 to $5000...even a half hearted expedition could afford a dozen or so, and have an ROV into the bargain for another relatively small cost. $30,000 - $50,000 would be more than enough for the entire initial expedition, including bribes for Cuban officials as and when required...a full investigation following the initial locating and inspection of the site would indeed cost more, but then the expense would be justified as any other expensive detailed dig anywhere in the world would be.

After all the ENTIRE purpose of archaeology departments anywhere in the world, IS the search and examination of sites, which may potentially add to the evolving knowledge base already acquired...they have NO other function, but to do this. Archaeology refusing to perform even an initial inspection of such a potentially massively important site, is like a lawyer refusing to defend someone because the cost of shoe polish to shine his or her shoes with.

To glibly claim that dropping a dozen or more relatively cheap sonar buoys, behind a research vessel for a few days is too expensive, especially when the potential payoff is as important as the Cuba site appears to be is utter nonsense. Even at your arbitrary costing figure of $500,000, is dirt CHEAP considering the crucial importance of such a discovery, a 'Mexican city' doesn't cut the mustard as a description.

They NEVER know what is going to be discovered on any dig, yet they dig anyway because that is their remit, their entire reason for being in the archaeology departments of the world!

Which brings me back to my original point that refusing to investigate the Cuban site, based on what is essentially such a TINY expenditure for such a potentially massive archaeological payoff is pathetic and stinks of not daring to attempt to verify the ruins as it would not only totally upset the archaeological applecart all right, finding an advanced city, 700m under the surface of the sea, would be like finding a fighter jet in a hidden pyramid chamber.

The ramifications of such a find are not similar to Gobekli tepe, at all. 12,000 - 15,000 yo religious monuments are most certainly very, very impressive and add greatly to our view of history, and are surprising for their technological and artisan quality among other benefits, but are in no way paradigm changing...the Cuban ruins being discussed here, should they exist, would most certainly be paradigm changing and would cause archaeology to revise their entire subject as it would create a historical anomaly of profound significance.

The simple fact is, a cursory, very basic examination of the area would cost a measly and insignificant amount, perhaps as low as $30,000 - $50,000 total...to not even look citing expense as a reason is rediculous in the extreme and betrays the very foundations of archaeology.

And yes...Troy was indeed considered ficticious or at best a myth by most serious institutions and archaeological authorities - this is widely known, not speculation on my part in the slightest, despite what you think.

While i'm at it, if you find reading or answering my points 'yawn' worthy, please feel free not to.

Originally posted by Hanslune

Oh you cannot walk up to (assuming it was dry) the problem with your ideas is that your mistaking a ridgeline for a 'temple' .

First of all, it is clear that there is debris covering part of the tunnel which include some large rocks, not to mention that the bottom, which is sand, is more than probably covering part of the tunnel. Just like sunken vessels after hundreds of years are covered with sand, some of them completely or almost completely.

There is a possibility the site is 2,000-3,000 years old, as I did find that they did some carbon testing to the coral attached to the structure and it is around 2,000+ years old. I'll give you that much.

The main different between the site you are showing and the Yonagumi site is that what you show is made up of many layers of rocks, meanwhile the Yonagumi monument, the main part of it, is made out of one piece of rock.

I have seen similar locations to that photo you posted in Wyoming. That type of rock made up of several layers is easy to break. if you take one of those layers and hit it against another rock it would break almost evenly. But the Yonagumi main monument is just one large rock.

I would love to see a photo of that site, which is to the north or northeast?, from top to the bottom, because even in that photo you gave it can be seen that the layers of rock are not even, unlike the Yonagumi monument.

reply to post by MysterX


I am with you. I THINK those are ruins, I would love to see the "real archeological orthodox community" get their heads out of where the sun don't shine, and think out of the box once in a while. That site is very important.

Even against the wishes of the Cuban government Paulina Zelinsky, among some others, TRIED to get the international archaeological orthodox community interested to SAVE that site because the castro brothers want to get either a Chinese, or Indian company to start digging for oil in that area, which would destroy, or damage the site.

Even Manuel A. Iturralde-Vinent, a Cuban geologist who has been recognized outside of Cuba, because he was working for the Cuban government, wanted to also explore the site, and he did say in the interview that the geologists that showed the most interest was the Mexicans.

I am sure that the other geologists gave the same excuse Hanslune is trying to give... "it is impossible for such ruins to exist that deep underwarter"... Geology, and archaeology, among other sciences, didn't make new discovery by claiming "that is impossible"...

Heck, geologists used to think that large geological events could only occur over millennia, and they claimed for decades that it was impossible for large events to happen quickly...

I am not saying the site in Cuba happened quickly, but there have been many times when orthodox school of thought has been wrong.

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


Yeah, i'm in complete agreement.

My stance is basically the same as yours - go and have a look, for Pete's sake!

If nothing of importance is actually there, that knowledge is relatively cheap to aquire and has value in itself (to a degree), and if something is there...? Wow!

Then the geologists can work out reasonable and plausible reasons for why the ruins are so far down, perhaps a freak and highly localised geological event in the past, perhaps something even stranger...the ruins may even turn out to be fantastically ancient...so ancient as to be currently unbelieveable to people in Archaeology and naysayers like H and venturing into 'previous but fallen high technology civilisation' territory.

The 'unbelievable' is pretty common these days, and the 'impossible' becomes perfectly possible quite often too.

A handful of decades ago, it was quite unbelievable for quantum entanglement phenomena to exist as it does, and impossible for a quantum photon to mirror an entangled partner whether separated by enormous distance or bizarrely, even time itself...many things change if the work is put in to finding out.

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

Wow, maybe because DICTATORS don't give a crap what the "archeological community" have to say about their decisions?...

Saddam was actually quite interested in archaeology but one thing I could say about the Cuban government is that they don't usually throw money away on false reports.

Originally posted by Hanslune
No you keep showing us over interpreted, bias 'images' that are not real. Why do you think this is 'real"?

That's your claim, which is no proof... How about showing proof the images are fake?...

Again, CLAIMING is no proof...

I realize that but you do not seem to understand the burden of proof. You can start by telling us who created that image you think is 'scientific proof' and then how they did it.

Originally posted by MysterX


What...you mean like Schoch initially stated that in his opinion the apparent weathering of the Egyptian Sphinx enclosure was caused by sand erosion, and later, after more thorough investigations of said enclosure, changed his stance completely and now states that the weathering on the enclosure is proof of extreme water based erosion over periods as long as 10,000 years....that Schoch is it?

No what he said about the Yonaguni monument - you do know that he's been there and declared it natural? Oh and he changed his mind to about 5000 BC

Personally, the sum of $500,000 for dropping even a large quantity of sonar buoys around the Cuban site is way overestimated for such an exercise. Google have done similar work all over the world, as has most major oil companies, as have treasure hunters searching for sunken shipping or WW2 relics, as have Universities and even, sometimes (believe it or not) archaeology departments of various countries

Actually it isn't, you just don't understand the magnitude of the job - to get accurate scientific data. Since you think it will be much cheaper please go do so.

After all the ENTIRE purpose of archaeology departments anywhere in the world, IS the search and examination of sites, which may potentially add to the evolving knowledge base already acquired...they have NO other function, but to do this. Archaeology refusing to perform even an initial inspection of such a potentially massively important site, is like a lawyer refusing to defend someone because the cost of shoe polish to shine his or her shoes with.

They already DID the initial inspection......

To glibly claim that dropping a dozen or more relatively cheap sonar buoys, behind a research vessel for a few days is too expensive, especially when the potential payoff is as important as the Cuba site appears to be is utter nonsense. Even at your arbitrary costing figure of $500,000, is dirt CHEAP considering the crucial importance of such a discovery, a 'Mexican city' doesn't cut the mustard as a description.

Considering you don't seem to know what a sonar buoys is or what it does I leave garner public laughter. Why don't you look up the cost of a ship that can operate for two weeks off the coast, do a archaeological survey at a depth of 700 meters with associated personnel?

They NEVER know what is going to be discovered on any dig, yet they dig anyway because that is their remit, their entire reason for being in the archaeology departments of the world!

We do field surveys and test pits first finding a 'dry hole' is a horrendous waste of money and a real career dampener.

I look forward to your raising the money - ARCE did it why not you or all the other people who do those sorts of things - why do you think National Geo didn't go, why do you think one of the big fringe writers hasn't put up the cash......ponder that, lol

Here is a company that does just that

Expeditions

Media Inquiries

Contact: Juliana Ruiz
Mobile: (305) 606-5044
Office: (425) 939-8409 x 124
Email: [email protected]

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

Originally posted by Hanslune
...
Since you're not a Mayanist I would suggest you may want to look at what is known as the Western Cuba mystery you might find it interesting.

This is not my first time researching this. I was even born in Havana Cuba, so I know and have heard stories from my family about the Punta Del Este caves, and other stories. Not to mention that I have been researching this and other discoveries there for a very long time.

Unless you specify as to what you are referring to exactly about in your statement I quoted above, I have no way to know what you are trying to imply.

That one of the oddities of Mayan research is that western Cuba being near the Yucatan is strangely empty of Mayan relics

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

Originally posted by Hanslune

Oh you cannot walk up to (assuming it was dry) the problem with your ideas is that your mistaking a ridgeline for a 'temple' .

First of all, it is clear that there is debris covering part of the tunnel which include some large rocks, not to mention that the bottom, which is sand, is more than probably covering part of the tunnel. Just like sunken vessels after hundreds of years are covered with sand, some of them completely or almost completely.

There is a possibility the site is 2,000-3,000 years old, as I did find that they did some carbon testing to the coral attached to the structure and it is around 2,000+ years old. I'll give you that much.

The main different between the site you are showing and the Yonagumi site is that what you show is made up of many layers of rocks, meanwhile the Yonagumi monument, the main part of it, is made out of one piece of rock.

I have seen similar locations to that photo you posted in Wyoming. That type of rock made up of several layers is easy to break. if you take one of those layers and hit it against another rock it would break almost evenly. But the Yonagumi main monument is just one large rock.

I would love to see a photo of that site, which is to the north or northeast?, from top to the bottom, because even in that photo you gave it can be seen that the layers of rock are not even, unlike the Yonagumi monument.

edit on 8-6-2013 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)

The reason you don't see other views of the yonaguni is that they look like ridge lines - the whole point by a certain community is to try and make it look as 'unnatural' as possible.

The yonaguni ridge line is made up of layers too, the one I posted is on the shore line just where the ridgeline of which yonaguni is a part emerges from the sea.

Think about your beloved 'tunnel' from where to where, it meaningless you can walk (if on dry land) right up to the ridge from any direction.

What are the dimensions of those 'stairs"?

reply to post by six67seven


S & F this is amazing I really hope they translate that documentary although my french isn't too bad

reply to post by Hanslune


First of all, and once again there is evidence in the form of "sonar images" and videos, but the site is over 700m underwater, not to mention that it is not in international waters so archaeologists from all over the world can't just go there whenever they want or get funding.

Second of all, even in court photos are evidence, for example in divorce cases photos of a spouse being involved in adultery are "PROOF/EVIDENCE", yet you just keep wanting to claim "there is no evidence"...

All I am saying is, this site should be explored. Just saying and claiming "it is nothing" doesn't disprove it, it is just the easiest thing to do for people like you, including for many geologists and archaeologists who just don't want to give it a second thought.

Anyway, don't want to keep arguing, this discovery of Thonis-Heracleion also has it's merits, so thank you for the op for posting it.

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

 

First of all, and once again there is evidence in the form of "sonar images" and videos, but the site is over 700m underwater, not to mention that it is not in international waters so archaeologists from all over the world can't just go there whenever they want or get funding.

Second of all, even in court photos are evidence, for example in divorce cases photos of a spouse being involved in adultery are "PROOF/EVIDENCE", yet you just keep wanting to claim "there is no evidence"...

All I am saying is, this site should be explored. Just saying and claiming "it is nothing" doesn't disprove it, it is just the easiest thing to do for people like you, including for many geologists and archaeologists who just don't want to give it a second thought.

Zelinsky's evidence is uncorroborated but if it is confirmed that would change the whole perspective. Notice in China there are bound to be many places western scientists have not seen anything of at all. How about the island that disappeared? I went to its spot on Google Earth, the highest spot is now 1600 feet below sea level.
www.bbc.co.uk...